From tgollier at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 18:25:03 2020 From: tgollier at gmail.com (Thomas Gollier) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 15:25:03 -0700 Subject: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 25 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mike, Good to hear from you. You brought me up short with your reference to me teaching a "rhetorical skill set," since I'm adamantly opposed to mixing rhetoric, in the sense of persuading others, with critical thinking. However, the standard of "consistent and complete" ? I not sure where "elegant and cohesive" came from ? is the basis of persuading others, but critical thinking, while it uses the same standard, is more concerned with persuading oneself as to what one should believe is true. Critical thinking, at its best, is a self-conscious back-and-forth collective effort toward discovering truth. While "consistent" may be deductive, however, "completeness" is inductive, so regardless of how sure we may be that we've tp what's true, it never flips over into The Truth once and for all. Every conclusion, having better or worse reasons for believing it is true, is open to debate. This is, I think, is the inescapable predicament of finite bodies that think in an infinite universe. What I found more interesting, though, and that you find, presumably on the basis of an objective moral code, both "Lance *and* Margot to be untrustworthy in serious ways." If that's Lance's confession, it sounds more like a kind politician's unapologetic "apology" to me. I really don't see how it could warrant any kind of absolution or release. At first, their relationship was "transactional." He offered the Southern aristocracy; she offered Texas money. And, they did seem to share the common objective of refurbishing of their house. But when the house was done, he remarks, she seemed to be done too. If the relationship were purely transactional, the transaction was completed, and each could have simply moved on. But no, the confession consists in the explanation or recounting of how something more had formed in their marriage, what I am calling a "moral bond" between them, and that she, not Lance, had betrayed it. He even seems to try to convince himself that the sexual infidelity should not be such a big deal, but it is, and it irrevocably broke that bond between them with such finality that he must have video evidence of the act itself. His "confession" is a matter of coming to understand the causes and consequences of what had happened, the crimes he had committed, so as to find the absolution or release that would allow a restart to his life. Is that even possible after such crimes? Personally, what I really like about this novel is that it sharpens the contrasts and contours of Percy's existentialism, and in the process it, somewhat paradoxically, makes his personal Catholicism more comprehensible to me. He seems to take the "confession" ? the thing that apparently attracted him to Catholicism in the first place ? and makes it into something different from the repentance and forgiveness (that is not forgiveness) it is within the Church. I would argue more generally that he rejects the depersonalizations of abstract Gods and Churches, the illusions of an objective moral code or truth. Perhaps that's a bit speculative? But he does, I think, try to the bring or give what truth those things can have for us to bear on our actual existence. Thanks Tom On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 1:35 PM Michael Larson wrote: > Tom, > > You're not annoying me. I appreciate the dialogue. I'll try to respond. > > I'll start with your question: " How does the notion of a 'hierarchy of > subjectivity' come from the possibility of infinite subjective > interpretations and the fact some of those interpretations are better than > others?" > > It comes contained in the last part of your question itself: "... the fact > that some of those interpretations are better than others." If some > interpretations are better than others, a hierarchy is by nature already > established and an objective standard is likewise already implied. > > When you speak of how you grade student writing, you are talking about > evaluating their display of a rhetorical skill set, not about their grasp > of the truth. Those are two different things. Either one can be judged > hierarchically. Elegance and cohesiveness of communication make a scale > that is independent of what is true. One person may offer an elegant > defense and plenty of cohesive reasoning as to why the earth is flat. > Another person might stumble through a weak defense of the spinning globe. > We might rank the former ahead of the latter in the skill set of rhetoric, > but we might rank the latter ahead of the former in his apprehension of the > truth as to the physical nature of the earth. > > The same is true when we look at a piece of literature: one person might > write beautifully about something that goes quite astray of what the story > means while another person might struggle in attempting to articulate what > is essentially a deep understanding of that same story. Of course, we are > most pleased when the two skills--communication and apprehension--are > joined in a single work. Take, for example, Tolkien's marvelous essay (a > lecture, actually), "The Monsters and the Critics." Prior to that lecture, > many well-known scholars had failed to grasp both the artistic genius and > the deep layers of meaning in *Beowulf*. In fact, they disdained many of > the very things that Tolkien was able to rescue--and not because his > subjective interpretation was more popular. It wasn't. In fact, it wasn't > fully known until he put it into words, but when he did, many objective > truths about the poem were made manifest to anyone who cared to see them > and especially to those who had always had a sense for them but lacked the > articulation. In short, Tolkien's interpretation was better than that of > prior critics, and people knew it. They knew it because it is possible for > humans to recognize when something is objectively true, especially when it > provides relief against that which has been less than fully true. > > What I am asserting here seems in direct opposition to what you say a > little later in your post: "I propose to my students that the reason for > objectively seeking out different interpretations is not to pick the right > one." My first thought about this is that there might not be a "right one." > The presence of several interpretations is no guarantee that any of them > has a good grasp on what is being interpreted. Alternatively, they might > all be basically "right," more or less, though perhaps with differing > levels of rhetorical effectiveness. In any case, I would always encourage > my students to compare and contrast, to evaluate arguments, to measure what > they read against reality, insofar as they have access to it. When the > object is truth, then everyone--critics and readers--is essentially working > together toward the same goal, though some with more success than others. > > But it sounds like, for you, the object is not so much truth as it is to > work out a kind of subjective *average *in one's own mind. You say, "[The > reason for seeking out different interpretations] is to get a non-objective > sense of the center and most comprehensive comprehension of all those > various interpretations." There is nothing wrong, of course, with > understanding a variety of interpretations, but if the end of that > understanding is merely to find the center of that variety, then we have > diverted our gaze from the object under consideration and shifted it to the > amalgamated opinion of the considerers. This is not exactly pure > subjectivism, which would be interested only in one's own opinion, but it > is a kind of preoccupation with potential means rather than the use of > those means toward their natural end: to arrive at truth regarding the > object under consideration. > > In your paragraph about morality, I'm not sure I follow the shift from > moral code to moral bond. To recognize a moral code, whether subjective or > objective, is a different mental act than to trust a neighbor not to harm > you. The former is concerned with classification (i.e. this is good, this > is evil) while the latter is concerned with prudential judgment (I predict > that you will not burn my house down). So once again, both acts can be > present: I can judge (whether accurately or not) that someone's burning > down my house would be an evil act even as I also judge (whether accurately > or not) that I do not think you will commit this act. Then if you do > actually burn down my house, I will know that my trust was misplaced; the > house will go up in smoke, but the classification of arson as evil will be > quite untouched by those flames. > > It's true that if this happened, I would no longer trust you not to burn > my house down. And yes, it's also possible, depending on how much I trusted > you to begin with, that I might start to doubt, in general, my judgment of > who is trustworthy and who is not. But to lose trust in others or in one's > ability to assess the trustworthiness of others is not the same as losing > the sense that some things are moral and that other things are immoral. > > I too find Lance and Margot to be untrustworthy in serious ways. The acts > that reveal their untrustworthiness are also acts I understand to be > objectively immoral. I would argue further that to even speak of trust and > distrust once again implies an objective sense of morality in the one who > trusts or distrusts. What makes us trust someone are typically things > understood to be morally good: honesty, forthrightness, patience, > stability, etc.. What makes us distrust someone are typically things > understood to be morally bad: lying, deception, short-temperedness, > fickleness, etc.. We know these things. Deep down. > > Mike > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joe.francisco4591 at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 13:59:01 2020 From: joe.francisco4591 at gmail.com (Joseph Francisco) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 13:59:01 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If I can still add to this thread: I just happened to pick the "Morte Darthur" off of my book shelves and of course I saw two familiar names: Lancelot and Percival. Certainly reasonable to think that the Dr would have delved into medieval literature for inspiration, pursuant to the Catholic quality of his writing. So this is to say that perhaps it would be helpful, for those who don't know, or have forgotten, that Lancelot is a knight mired in his sin, unable to respond to the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, as his heart is "harder than stone and bitterer than the tree." He later runs across a hermit and confesses himself, receives council about the error of his ways and how he might fix them, and is absolved. Sir Percival, on the other hand, was a knight of near-perfect faith in Christ. He is rewaded with a strong and beautful horse, while in the preceding story, Sir Lancelot loses his horse. Just a little background on what may have been WP's inspiration for his own characters. Forgive me if I have misreported any details of these dense, allegorical tales, the language of which features many foreign words and usages. --Joe Francisco On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 5:12 PM Michael Larson wrote: > Rhonda, > > That is an interesting speculation. Of course, the true priest always > presents the Immaculate Christ, right, specifically in the mass and the > sacraments? But then in this case, we can't really say that Lance's > confession is a sacramental one. In fact, it is clearly not. So the role of > Percival is indeed reduced more to friend than priest, in which case the > emphasis on fellow sinner is more apt. On the other hand, Percy paints the > dramatic situation to suggest a sacramental setting, the confined cell, the > silence of the priest throughout all the long confession, the fact that the > listener IS a priest, etc.. So he is playing with both ideas. The silence > of Percival speaks volumes, though. There is in it both a pregnant judgment > and a way to bear it, I suspect. But that is in the pages we do not see ... > > Mike > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:04 AM wrote: > >> Send Percy-L mailing list submissions to >> percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> percy-l-request at lists.ibiblio.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> percy-l-owner at lists.ibiblio.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Percy-L digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Debt Forgiveness and Lancelot (Michael Larson) >> 2. Re: Debt Forgiveness and Lancelot (RHONDA MCDONNELL) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 17:37:13 -0500 >> From: Michael Larson >> To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org >> Subject: [percy-l] Debt Forgiveness and Lancelot >> Message-ID: >> < >> CAMmLp8iMYv2ks-wmUo9y6RJEDu_RffaEvsYYYfm1sjM5Wp+GWQ at mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> Debt forgiveness is for the ignorant (those who know not what they do) >> and >> for the repentant, those who are sorry for their wrongs and aim to amend >> their lives. This latter implies a belief in an objective moral order. >> >> In *Lancelot*, three ways are proposed (p. 255-57): 1) Sodom: the way of >> the modern world (i.e. rejection of an objective moral order), 2) Lance's >> way (i.e. a return to an objective moral order, enforced with an iron >> fist: >> a new version of the Old Law), 3) Percival's way: the way of the Church >> (i.e. acceptance of an objective moral order, but mercy for the penitent: >> a >> return to the New Law, a.k.a. Christendom). >> >> The world at present is in the final throes of the first way, but Lancelot >> and Percival agree that the future of humanity cannot continue in this >> way. >> They agree beyond any doubt that it will be either the second or the third >> way, but not both. And we know which of the two Percy, the author, is >> asserting by the final words of the novel, when Lancelot asks Percival, >> "Is >> there anything you wish to tell me before I leave?" and Percival, who has >> been the silent hearer of Lance's 255-page confession, responds, "Yes." >> >> Probably he will tell Lance that without sorrow for his sins, the new >> beginning he envisions is as doomed as the modern world. >> >> Mike Larson >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: < >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/attachments/20200701/b1713152/attachment-0001.html >> > >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 22:56:25 +0000 >> From: RHONDA MCDONNELL >> To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" >> >> Subject: Re: [percy-l] Debt Forgiveness and Lancelot >> Message-ID: >> < >> DM6PR14MB26173BA65586259A43104B7AE46C0 at DM6PR14MB2617.namprd14.prod.outlook.com >> > >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> Thanks for the perspective, Michael. Wondering what Father John is going >> to say has taken up some mental energy on my end, as well. I?ve always >> imagined that he would note Lance?s hypocrisy and, as a stand in for God, >> present the ?maculate Christ? as Tom Moore sees in Love in the Ruins. In >> other words, Father John would speak to Lancelot not as a judge or even a >> priest, but as a fellow sinner who is, even so, a believer. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Rhonda McDonnell >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jul 1, 2020, at 6:38 PM, Michael Larson wrote: >> >> ? >> Debt forgiveness is for the ignorant (those who know not what they do) >> and for the repentant, those who are sorry for their wrongs and aim to >> amend their lives. This latter implies a belief in an objective moral order. >> >> In Lancelot, three ways are proposed (p. 255-57): 1) Sodom: the way of >> the modern world (i.e. rejection of an objective moral order), 2) Lance's >> way (i.e. a return to an objective moral order, enforced with an iron fist: >> a new version of the Old Law), 3) Percival's way: the way of the Church >> (i.e. acceptance of an objective moral order, but mercy for the penitent: a >> return to the New Law, a.k.a. Christendom). >> >> The world at present is in the final throes of the first way, but >> Lancelot and Percival agree that the future of humanity cannot continue in >> this way. They agree beyond any doubt that it will be either the second or >> the third way, but not both. And we know which of the two Percy, the >> author, is asserting by the final words of the novel, when Lancelot asks >> Percival, "Is there anything you wish to tell me before I leave?" and >> Percival, who has been the silent hearer of Lance's 255-page confession, >> responds, "Yes." >> >> Probably he will tell Lance that without sorrow for his sins, the new >> beginning he envisions is as doomed as the modern world. >> >> Mike Larson >> >> ---------------------------------- >> * Percy-L Discussion Archives: >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ >> >> * Manage Your Membership: >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l >> >> * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org >> >> * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: < >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/attachments/20200701/f414ce88/attachment-0001.html >> > >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Subject: Digest Footer >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Percy-L mailing list >> Percy-L at lists.ibiblio.org >> https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> End of Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 1 >> *************************************** >> > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larsonovic at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 15:02:16 2020 From: larsonovic at gmail.com (Michael Larson) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 14:02:16 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Tom, Thanks for the post. I think I am using the term "rhetoric" in a broader sense than you are. That is to say, I am not using it as a synonym for "persuasion," though persuasive effect would certainly be a component of rhetoric. Then again, so would critical thinking--as well as the use of logic and grammar, to round out the classical trivium--and several other skills. The rhetorical act involves everything, from start to finish, that goes into the eventual communication of what one believes to be true. It is possible to be very skilled in many or all of those components and still to misapprehend the objective truth of the thing being examined. That was the point I was making. It follows, then, from my use of "rhetoric" that "critical thinking," especially in the way that you have defined it (i.e. as a conscious attempt to discover truth, often in consultation with the arguments of others) cannot be, or at least should not be, divorced from the art of rhetoric. If it is divorced, it is more likely to be sophistry than rhetoric. My use of "elegance" and "cohesion" was merely the naming of two specific elements of rhetoric, not meant to be comprehensive but rather to illustrate how portions of a skill set might be differentiated from the objective truth toward which the skill set is being employed. The following statement of yours is interesting: "... regardless of how sure we may be that we've tp what's true, it never flips over into The Truth once and for all. Every conclusion, having better or worse reasons for believing it is true, is open to debate. This is, I think, is the inescapable predicament of finite bodies that think in an infinite universe." What you describe here is definitely accurate with regards to the individual who is attempting to perceive a truth that cannot be proven deductively. Lacking infinite knowledge, we must always make our assertions in the framework of what is more or less probable. Aristotle explains this well in his discussion of inductive reasoning in the service of rhetoric. However, from the side of whatever is actually true (about whatever is under consideration), the once-and-for-all-ness is not subject to human error or ignorance or blindness. In other words, the objective truth doesn't need an escape clause, like we do, to change positions based on new information. Let's take the Catholic Church's claim to be the divinely appointed authority (and consequent protection from error) in matters of faith and morals. That claim is either objectively true, or it is not. Individuals can examine the claim, as Percy did, and decide it is more or less probable and make their decisions accordingly, but the reality of the situation just is what it is, regardless of the finite mind's ability to assess the odds. When you say this, "If that's Lance's confession, it sounds more like a kind politician's unapologetic 'apology' to me. I really don't see how it could warrant any kind of absolution or release," I am in complete agreement with you. And the rest of your analysis in that paragraph seems spot on to me as well. That's why I said, in the very beginning of this discussion, that Lance is surely not about to be "absolved" by Percival when the novel ends. Yes, of course, his "confession" has been cathartic, and he believes he has found the means of a restart, as you call it. But that is not how Percival sees it. He has something more to tell Lance. The whole novel has been leading up to this moment where Lance feels finally purged of his side of the story and is now ready to move on and live (self) righteously in defiance of a world gone mad. And now Percival is finally ready and willing to speak. Brilliantly, his words will occur off camera. In your final paragraph, you seem to be saying that Percy himself is, through the novel, changing the notion of sacramental confession into existential confession, as Lance perhaps does. But this is to ignore the role of Percival, who, in the final pages of the novel, could not be more clearly distinguished from Lance. And your speculation that Percy is rejecting "the illusions of an objective moral code or truth" seems entirely unfounded, given that neither Lance nor Percival makes such a rejection. In fact, they are united in their opposition to the modern world, which has indeed abandoned the notion of objective truth. Their solutions to that problem, however, are quite different. Best, Mike On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 11:00 AM wrote: > Send Percy-L mailing list submissions to > percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > percy-l-request at lists.ibiblio.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > percy-l-owner at lists.ibiblio.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Percy-L digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 25 (Thomas Gollier) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 15:25:03 -0700 > From: Thomas Gollier > To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 25 > Message-ID: > hSdg at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Mike, > > Good to hear from you. > > You brought me up short with your reference to me teaching a "rhetorical > skill set," since I'm adamantly opposed to > mixing rhetoric, in the sense of persuading others, with critical thinking. > However, the standard of "consistent and > complete" ? I not sure where "elegant and cohesive" came from ? is the > basis of persuading others, but critical > thinking, while it uses the same standard, is more concerned with > persuading oneself as to what one should believe > is true. Critical thinking, at its best, is a self-conscious back-and-forth > collective effort toward discovering > truth. While "consistent" may be deductive, however, "completeness" is > inductive, so regardless of how sure we may be > that we've tp what's true, it never flips over into The Truth once and for > all. Every conclusion, having better or > worse reasons for believing it is true, is open to debate. This is, I > think, is the inescapable predicament of > finite bodies that think in an infinite universe. > > What I found more interesting, though, and that you find, presumably on the > basis of an objective moral code, both > "Lance *and* Margot to be untrustworthy in serious ways." If that's Lance's > confession, it sounds more like a kind > politician's unapologetic "apology" to me. I really don't see how it could > warrant any kind of absolution or > release. At first, their relationship was "transactional." He offered the > Southern aristocracy; she offered Texas > money. And, they did seem to share the common objective of refurbishing of > their house. But when the house was done, > he remarks, she seemed to be done too. If the relationship were purely > transactional, the transaction was completed, > and each could have simply moved on. But no, the confession consists in the > explanation or recounting of how > something more had formed in their marriage, what I am calling a "moral > bond" between them, and that she, not Lance, > had betrayed it. He even seems to try to convince himself that the sexual > infidelity should not be such a big > deal, but it is, and it irrevocably broke that bond between them with such > finality that he must have video evidence > of the act itself. His "confession" is a matter of coming to understand the > causes and consequences of what had > happened, the crimes he had committed, so as to find the absolution or > release that would allow a restart to his > life. Is that even possible after such crimes? > > Personally, what I really like about this novel is that it sharpens the > contrasts and contours of Percy's > existentialism, and in the process it, somewhat paradoxically, makes his > personal Catholicism more comprehensible to me. > He seems to take the "confession" ? the thing that apparently attracted him > to Catholicism in the first place ? and > makes it into something different from the repentance and forgiveness (that > is not forgiveness) it is within the > Church. I would argue more generally that he rejects the depersonalizations > of abstract Gods and Churches, the > illusions of an objective moral code or truth. Perhaps that's a bit > speculative? But he does, I think, try to the > bring or give what truth those things can have for us to bear on our actual > existence. > > Thanks > Tom > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 1:35 PM Michael Larson > wrote: > > > Tom, > > > > You're not annoying me. I appreciate the dialogue. I'll try to respond. > > > > I'll start with your question: " How does the notion of a 'hierarchy of > > subjectivity' come from the possibility of infinite subjective > > interpretations and the fact some of those interpretations are better > than > > others?" > > > > It comes contained in the last part of your question itself: "... the > fact > > that some of those interpretations are better than others." If some > > interpretations are better than others, a hierarchy is by nature already > > established and an objective standard is likewise already implied. > > > > When you speak of how you grade student writing, you are talking about > > evaluating their display of a rhetorical skill set, not about their grasp > > of the truth. Those are two different things. Either one can be judged > > hierarchically. Elegance and cohesiveness of communication make a scale > > that is independent of what is true. One person may offer an elegant > > defense and plenty of cohesive reasoning as to why the earth is flat. > > Another person might stumble through a weak defense of the spinning > globe. > > We might rank the former ahead of the latter in the skill set of > rhetoric, > > but we might rank the latter ahead of the former in his apprehension of > the > > truth as to the physical nature of the earth. > > > > The same is true when we look at a piece of literature: one person might > > write beautifully about something that goes quite astray of what the > story > > means while another person might struggle in attempting to articulate > what > > is essentially a deep understanding of that same story. Of course, we are > > most pleased when the two skills--communication and apprehension--are > > joined in a single work. Take, for example, Tolkien's marvelous essay (a > > lecture, actually), "The Monsters and the Critics." Prior to that > lecture, > > many well-known scholars had failed to grasp both the artistic genius and > > the deep layers of meaning in *Beowulf*. In fact, they disdained many of > > the very things that Tolkien was able to rescue--and not because his > > subjective interpretation was more popular. It wasn't. In fact, it wasn't > > fully known until he put it into words, but when he did, many objective > > truths about the poem were made manifest to anyone who cared to see them > > and especially to those who had always had a sense for them but lacked > the > > articulation. In short, Tolkien's interpretation was better than that of > > prior critics, and people knew it. They knew it because it is possible > for > > humans to recognize when something is objectively true, especially when > it > > provides relief against that which has been less than fully true. > > > > What I am asserting here seems in direct opposition to what you say a > > little later in your post: "I propose to my students that the reason for > > objectively seeking out different interpretations is not to pick the > right > > one." My first thought about this is that there might not be a "right > one." > > The presence of several interpretations is no guarantee that any of them > > has a good grasp on what is being interpreted. Alternatively, they might > > all be basically "right," more or less, though perhaps with differing > > levels of rhetorical effectiveness. In any case, I would always encourage > > my students to compare and contrast, to evaluate arguments, to measure > what > > they read against reality, insofar as they have access to it. When the > > object is truth, then everyone--critics and readers--is essentially > working > > together toward the same goal, though some with more success than others. > > > > But it sounds like, for you, the object is not so much truth as it is to > > work out a kind of subjective *average *in one's own mind. You say, "[The > > reason for seeking out different interpretations] is to get a > non-objective > > sense of the center and most comprehensive comprehension of all those > > various interpretations." There is nothing wrong, of course, with > > understanding a variety of interpretations, but if the end of that > > understanding is merely to find the center of that variety, then we have > > diverted our gaze from the object under consideration and shifted it to > the > > amalgamated opinion of the considerers. This is not exactly pure > > subjectivism, which would be interested only in one's own opinion, but it > > is a kind of preoccupation with potential means rather than the use of > > those means toward their natural end: to arrive at truth regarding the > > object under consideration. > > > > In your paragraph about morality, I'm not sure I follow the shift from > > moral code to moral bond. To recognize a moral code, whether subjective > or > > objective, is a different mental act than to trust a neighbor not to harm > > you. The former is concerned with classification (i.e. this is good, this > > is evil) while the latter is concerned with prudential judgment (I > predict > > that you will not burn my house down). So once again, both acts can be > > present: I can judge (whether accurately or not) that someone's burning > > down my house would be an evil act even as I also judge (whether > accurately > > or not) that I do not think you will commit this act. Then if you do > > actually burn down my house, I will know that my trust was misplaced; the > > house will go up in smoke, but the classification of arson as evil will > be > > quite untouched by those flames. > > > > It's true that if this happened, I would no longer trust you not to burn > > my house down. And yes, it's also possible, depending on how much I > trusted > > you to begin with, that I might start to doubt, in general, my judgment > of > > who is trustworthy and who is not. But to lose trust in others or in > one's > > ability to assess the trustworthiness of others is not the same as losing > > the sense that some things are moral and that other things are immoral. > > > > I too find Lance and Margot to be untrustworthy in serious ways. The acts > > that reveal their untrustworthiness are also acts I understand to be > > objectively immoral. I would argue further that to even speak of trust > and > > distrust once again implies an objective sense of morality in the one who > > trusts or distrusts. What makes us trust someone are typically things > > understood to be morally good: honesty, forthrightness, patience, > > stability, etc.. What makes us distrust someone are typically things > > understood to be morally bad: lying, deception, short-temperedness, > > fickleness, etc.. We know these things. Deep down. > > > > Mike > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/attachments/20200801/b15d82af/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Percy-L mailing list > Percy-L at lists.ibiblio.org > https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 1 > *************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larsonovic at gmail.com Sun Aug 2 15:58:20 2020 From: larsonovic at gmail.com (Michael Larson) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 14:58:20 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Joe, Excellent background. Thank you! ML On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 2:04 PM wrote: > Send Percy-L mailing list submissions to > percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > percy-l-request at lists.ibiblio.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > percy-l-owner at lists.ibiblio.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Percy-L digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 1 (Joseph Francisco) > 2. Re: Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 1 (Michael Larson) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 13:59:01 -0400 > From: Joseph Francisco > To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 1 > Message-ID: > vwP-SP3HKXHQ at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > If I can still add to this thread: I just happened to pick the "Morte > Darthur" off of my book shelves and of course I saw two familiar names: > Lancelot and Percival. Certainly reasonable to think that the Dr would have > delved into medieval literature for inspiration, pursuant to the Catholic > quality of his writing. > > So this is to say that perhaps it would be helpful, for those who don't > know, or have forgotten, that Lancelot is a knight mired in his sin, unable > to respond to the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, as his heart is > "harder than stone and bitterer than the tree." He later runs across a > hermit and confesses himself, receives council about the error of his ways > and how he might fix them, and is absolved. > > Sir Percival, on the other hand, was a knight of near-perfect faith in > Christ. He is rewaded with a strong and beautful horse, while in the > preceding story, Sir Lancelot loses his horse. > > Just a little background on what may have been WP's inspiration for his own > characters. Forgive me if I have misreported any details of these dense, > allegorical tales, the language of which features many foreign words and > usages. > > --Joe Francisco > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 5:12 PM Michael Larson > wrote: > > > Rhonda, > > > > That is an interesting speculation. Of course, the true priest always > > presents the Immaculate Christ, right, specifically in the mass and the > > sacraments? But then in this case, we can't really say that Lance's > > confession is a sacramental one. In fact, it is clearly not. So the role > of > > Percival is indeed reduced more to friend than priest, in which case the > > emphasis on fellow sinner is more apt. On the other hand, Percy paints > the > > dramatic situation to suggest a sacramental setting, the confined cell, > the > > silence of the priest throughout all the long confession, the fact that > the > > listener IS a priest, etc.. So he is playing with both ideas. The silence > > of Percival speaks volumes, though. There is in it both a pregnant > judgment > > and a way to bear it, I suspect. But that is in the pages we do not see > ... > > > > Mike > > > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:04 AM > wrote: > > > >> Send Percy-L mailing list submissions to > >> percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > >> > >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > >> https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > >> percy-l-request at lists.ibiblio.org > >> > >> You can reach the person managing the list at > >> percy-l-owner at lists.ibiblio.org > >> > >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > >> than "Re: Contents of Percy-L digest..." > >> > >> > >> Today's Topics: > >> > >> 1. Debt Forgiveness and Lancelot (Michael Larson) > >> 2. Re: Debt Forgiveness and Lancelot (RHONDA MCDONNELL) > >> > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> Message: 1 > >> Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 17:37:13 -0500 > >> From: Michael Larson > >> To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > >> Subject: [percy-l] Debt Forgiveness and Lancelot > >> Message-ID: > >> < > >> CAMmLp8iMYv2ks-wmUo9y6RJEDu_RffaEvsYYYfm1sjM5Wp+GWQ at mail.gmail.com> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >> > >> Debt forgiveness is for the ignorant (those who know not what they do) > >> and > >> for the repentant, those who are sorry for their wrongs and aim to amend > >> their lives. This latter implies a belief in an objective moral order. > >> > >> In *Lancelot*, three ways are proposed (p. 255-57): 1) Sodom: the way of > >> the modern world (i.e. rejection of an objective moral order), 2) > Lance's > >> way (i.e. a return to an objective moral order, enforced with an iron > >> fist: > >> a new version of the Old Law), 3) Percival's way: the way of the Church > >> (i.e. acceptance of an objective moral order, but mercy for the > penitent: > >> a > >> return to the New Law, a.k.a. Christendom). > >> > >> The world at present is in the final throes of the first way, but > Lancelot > >> and Percival agree that the future of humanity cannot continue in this > >> way. > >> They agree beyond any doubt that it will be either the second or the > third > >> way, but not both. And we know which of the two Percy, the author, is > >> asserting by the final words of the novel, when Lancelot asks Percival, > >> "Is > >> there anything you wish to tell me before I leave?" and Percival, who > has > >> been the silent hearer of Lance's 255-page confession, responds, "Yes." > >> > >> Probably he will tell Lance that without sorrow for his sins, the new > >> beginning he envisions is as doomed as the modern world. > >> > >> Mike Larson > >> -------------- next part -------------- > >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >> URL: < > >> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/attachments/20200701/b1713152/attachment-0001.html > >> > > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> Message: 2 > >> Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 22:56:25 +0000 > >> From: RHONDA MCDONNELL > >> To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > >> > >> Subject: Re: [percy-l] Debt Forgiveness and Lancelot > >> Message-ID: > >> < > >> > DM6PR14MB26173BA65586259A43104B7AE46C0 at DM6PR14MB2617.namprd14.prod.outlook.com > >> > > >> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >> > >> Thanks for the perspective, Michael. Wondering what Father John is going > >> to say has taken up some mental energy on my end, as well. I?ve always > >> imagined that he would note Lance?s hypocrisy and, as a stand in for > God, > >> present the ?maculate Christ? as Tom Moore sees in Love in the Ruins. In > >> other words, Father John would speak to Lancelot not as a judge or even > a > >> priest, but as a fellow sinner who is, even so, a believer. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Rhonda McDonnell > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >> > >> On Jul 1, 2020, at 6:38 PM, Michael Larson > wrote: > >> > >> ? > >> Debt forgiveness is for the ignorant (those who know not what they do) > >> and for the repentant, those who are sorry for their wrongs and aim to > >> amend their lives. This latter implies a belief in an objective moral > order. > >> > >> In Lancelot, three ways are proposed (p. 255-57): 1) Sodom: the way of > >> the modern world (i.e. rejection of an objective moral order), 2) > Lance's > >> way (i.e. a return to an objective moral order, enforced with an iron > fist: > >> a new version of the Old Law), 3) Percival's way: the way of the Church > >> (i.e. acceptance of an objective moral order, but mercy for the > penitent: a > >> return to the New Law, a.k.a. Christendom). > >> > >> The world at present is in the final throes of the first way, but > >> Lancelot and Percival agree that the future of humanity cannot continue > in > >> this way. They agree beyond any doubt that it will be either the second > or > >> the third way, but not both. And we know which of the two Percy, the > >> author, is asserting by the final words of the novel, when Lancelot asks > >> Percival, "Is there anything you wish to tell me before I leave?" and > >> Percival, who has been the silent hearer of Lance's 255-page confession, > >> responds, "Yes." > >> > >> Probably he will tell Lance that without sorrow for his sins, the new > >> beginning he envisions is as doomed as the modern world. > >> > >> Mike Larson > >> > >> ---------------------------------- > >> * Percy-L Discussion Archives: > >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > >> > >> * Manage Your Membership: > >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > >> > >> * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > >> > >> * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > >> -------------- next part -------------- > >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >> URL: < > >> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/attachments/20200701/f414ce88/attachment-0001.html > >> > > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> Subject: Digest Footer > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Percy-L mailing list > >> Percy-L at lists.ibiblio.org > >> https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> End of Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 1 > >> *************************************** > >> > > > > ---------------------------------- > > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > > > * Manage Your Membership: > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/attachments/20200802/a520eddc/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 14:02:16 -0500 > From: Michael Larson > To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 1 > Message-ID: > xsOtt8+An72cvgPQ8M1we7RFUxZ_8j4OQVki47g at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Tom, > > Thanks for the post. > > I think I am using the term "rhetoric" in a broader sense than you are. > That is to say, I am not using it as a synonym for "persuasion," though > persuasive effect would certainly be a component of rhetoric. Then again, > so would critical thinking--as well as the use of logic and grammar, to > round out the classical trivium--and several other skills. The rhetorical > act involves everything, from start to finish, that goes into the eventual > communication of what one believes to be true. It is possible to be very > skilled in many or all of those components and still to misapprehend the > objective truth of the thing being examined. That was the point I was > making. It follows, then, from my use of "rhetoric" that "critical > thinking," especially in the way that you have defined it (i.e. as a > conscious attempt to discover truth, often in consultation with the > arguments of others) cannot be, or at least should not be, divorced from > the art of rhetoric. If it is divorced, it is more likely to be sophistry > than rhetoric. > > My use of "elegance" and "cohesion" was merely the naming of two specific > elements of rhetoric, not meant to be comprehensive but rather to > illustrate how portions of a skill set might be differentiated from the > objective truth toward which the skill set is being employed. > > The following statement of yours is interesting: > > "... regardless of how sure we may be that we've tp what's true, it never > flips over into The Truth once and for all. Every conclusion, having better > or worse reasons for believing it is true, is open to debate. This is, I > think, is the inescapable predicament of finite bodies that think in an > infinite universe." > > What you describe here is definitely accurate with regards to the > individual who is attempting to perceive a truth that cannot be proven > deductively. Lacking infinite knowledge, we must always make our assertions > in the framework of what is more or less probable. Aristotle explains this > well in his discussion of inductive reasoning in the service of rhetoric. > However, from the side of whatever is actually true (about whatever is > under consideration), the once-and-for-all-ness is not subject to human > error or ignorance or blindness. In other words, the objective truth > doesn't need an escape clause, like we do, to change positions based on new > information. > > Let's take the Catholic Church's claim to be the divinely appointed > authority (and consequent protection from error) in matters of faith and > morals. That claim is either objectively true, or it is not. Individuals > can examine the claim, as Percy did, and decide it is more or less probable > and make their decisions accordingly, but the reality of the situation just > is what it is, regardless of the finite mind's ability to assess the odds. > > When you say this, "If that's Lance's confession, it sounds more like a > kind politician's unapologetic 'apology' to me. I really don't see how it > could warrant any kind of absolution or release," I am in complete > agreement with you. And the rest of your analysis in that paragraph seems > spot on to me as well. That's why I said, in the very beginning of this > discussion, that Lance is surely not about to be "absolved" by Percival > when the novel ends. Yes, of course, his "confession" has been cathartic, > and he believes he has found the means of a restart, as you call it. But > that is not how Percival sees it. He has something more to tell Lance. The > whole novel has been leading up to this moment where Lance feels finally > purged of his side of the story and is now ready to move on and live (self) > righteously in defiance of a world gone mad. And now Percival is finally > ready and willing to speak. Brilliantly, his words will occur off camera. > > In your final paragraph, you seem to be saying that Percy himself is, > through the novel, changing the notion of sacramental confession into > existential confession, as Lance perhaps does. But this is to ignore the > role of Percival, who, in the final pages of the novel, could not be more > clearly distinguished from Lance. And your speculation that Percy is > rejecting "the illusions of an objective moral code or truth" seems > entirely unfounded, given that neither Lance nor Percival makes such a > rejection. In fact, they are united in their opposition to the modern > world, which has indeed abandoned the notion of objective truth. Their > solutions to that problem, however, are quite different. > > Best, > Mike > > On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 11:00 AM wrote: > > > Send Percy-L mailing list submissions to > > percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > percy-l-request at lists.ibiblio.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > percy-l-owner at lists.ibiblio.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Percy-L digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 25 (Thomas Gollier) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 15:25:03 -0700 > > From: Thomas Gollier > > To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > > > > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 25 > > Message-ID: > > > hSdg at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > Mike, > > > > Good to hear from you. > > > > You brought me up short with your reference to me teaching a "rhetorical > > skill set," since I'm adamantly opposed to > > mixing rhetoric, in the sense of persuading others, with critical > thinking. > > However, the standard of "consistent and > > complete" ? I not sure where "elegant and cohesive" came from ? is the > > basis of persuading others, but critical > > thinking, while it uses the same standard, is more concerned with > > persuading oneself as to what one should believe > > is true. Critical thinking, at its best, is a self-conscious > back-and-forth > > collective effort toward discovering > > truth. While "consistent" may be deductive, however, "completeness" is > > inductive, so regardless of how sure we may be > > that we've tp what's true, it never flips over into The Truth once and > for > > all. Every conclusion, having better or > > worse reasons for believing it is true, is open to debate. This is, I > > think, is the inescapable predicament of > > finite bodies that think in an infinite universe. > > > > What I found more interesting, though, and that you find, presumably on > the > > basis of an objective moral code, both > > "Lance *and* Margot to be untrustworthy in serious ways." If that's > Lance's > > confession, it sounds more like a kind > > politician's unapologetic "apology" to me. I really don't see how it > could > > warrant any kind of absolution or > > release. At first, their relationship was "transactional." He offered the > > Southern aristocracy; she offered Texas > > money. And, they did seem to share the common objective of refurbishing > of > > their house. But when the house was done, > > he remarks, she seemed to be done too. If the relationship were purely > > transactional, the transaction was completed, > > and each could have simply moved on. But no, the confession consists in > the > > explanation or recounting of how > > something more had formed in their marriage, what I am calling a "moral > > bond" between them, and that she, not Lance, > > had betrayed it. He even seems to try to convince himself that the sexual > > infidelity should not be such a big > > deal, but it is, and it irrevocably broke that bond between them with > such > > finality that he must have video evidence > > of the act itself. His "confession" is a matter of coming to understand > the > > causes and consequences of what had > > happened, the crimes he had committed, so as to find the absolution or > > release that would allow a restart to his > > life. Is that even possible after such crimes? > > > > Personally, what I really like about this novel is that it sharpens the > > contrasts and contours of Percy's > > existentialism, and in the process it, somewhat paradoxically, makes his > > personal Catholicism more comprehensible to me. > > He seems to take the "confession" ? the thing that apparently attracted > him > > to Catholicism in the first place ? and > > makes it into something different from the repentance and forgiveness > (that > > is not forgiveness) it is within the > > Church. I would argue more generally that he rejects the > depersonalizations > > of abstract Gods and Churches, the > > illusions of an objective moral code or truth. Perhaps that's a bit > > speculative? But he does, I think, try to the > > bring or give what truth those things can have for us to bear on our > actual > > existence. > > > > Thanks > > Tom > > > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 1:35 PM Michael Larson > > wrote: > > > > > Tom, > > > > > > You're not annoying me. I appreciate the dialogue. I'll try to respond. > > > > > > I'll start with your question: " How does the notion of a 'hierarchy of > > > subjectivity' come from the possibility of infinite subjective > > > interpretations and the fact some of those interpretations are better > > than > > > others?" > > > > > > It comes contained in the last part of your question itself: "... the > > fact > > > that some of those interpretations are better than others." If some > > > interpretations are better than others, a hierarchy is by nature > already > > > established and an objective standard is likewise already implied. > > > > > > When you speak of how you grade student writing, you are talking about > > > evaluating their display of a rhetorical skill set, not about their > grasp > > > of the truth. Those are two different things. Either one can be judged > > > hierarchically. Elegance and cohesiveness of communication make a scale > > > that is independent of what is true. One person may offer an elegant > > > defense and plenty of cohesive reasoning as to why the earth is flat. > > > Another person might stumble through a weak defense of the spinning > > globe. > > > We might rank the former ahead of the latter in the skill set of > > rhetoric, > > > but we might rank the latter ahead of the former in his apprehension of > > the > > > truth as to the physical nature of the earth. > > > > > > The same is true when we look at a piece of literature: one person > might > > > write beautifully about something that goes quite astray of what the > > story > > > means while another person might struggle in attempting to articulate > > what > > > is essentially a deep understanding of that same story. Of course, we > are > > > most pleased when the two skills--communication and apprehension--are > > > joined in a single work. Take, for example, Tolkien's marvelous essay > (a > > > lecture, actually), "The Monsters and the Critics." Prior to that > > lecture, > > > many well-known scholars had failed to grasp both the artistic genius > and > > > the deep layers of meaning in *Beowulf*. In fact, they disdained many > of > > > the very things that Tolkien was able to rescue--and not because his > > > subjective interpretation was more popular. It wasn't. In fact, it > wasn't > > > fully known until he put it into words, but when he did, many objective > > > truths about the poem were made manifest to anyone who cared to see > them > > > and especially to those who had always had a sense for them but lacked > > the > > > articulation. In short, Tolkien's interpretation was better than that > of > > > prior critics, and people knew it. They knew it because it is possible > > for > > > humans to recognize when something is objectively true, especially when > > it > > > provides relief against that which has been less than fully true. > > > > > > What I am asserting here seems in direct opposition to what you say a > > > little later in your post: "I propose to my students that the reason > for > > > objectively seeking out different interpretations is not to pick the > > right > > > one." My first thought about this is that there might not be a "right > > one." > > > The presence of several interpretations is no guarantee that any of > them > > > has a good grasp on what is being interpreted. Alternatively, they > might > > > all be basically "right," more or less, though perhaps with differing > > > levels of rhetorical effectiveness. In any case, I would always > encourage > > > my students to compare and contrast, to evaluate arguments, to measure > > what > > > they read against reality, insofar as they have access to it. When the > > > object is truth, then everyone--critics and readers--is essentially > > working > > > together toward the same goal, though some with more success than > others. > > > > > > But it sounds like, for you, the object is not so much truth as it is > to > > > work out a kind of subjective *average *in one's own mind. You say, > "[The > > > reason for seeking out different interpretations] is to get a > > non-objective > > > sense of the center and most comprehensive comprehension of all those > > > various interpretations." There is nothing wrong, of course, with > > > understanding a variety of interpretations, but if the end of that > > > understanding is merely to find the center of that variety, then we > have > > > diverted our gaze from the object under consideration and shifted it to > > the > > > amalgamated opinion of the considerers. This is not exactly pure > > > subjectivism, which would be interested only in one's own opinion, but > it > > > is a kind of preoccupation with potential means rather than the use of > > > those means toward their natural end: to arrive at truth regarding the > > > object under consideration. > > > > > > In your paragraph about morality, I'm not sure I follow the shift from > > > moral code to moral bond. To recognize a moral code, whether subjective > > or > > > objective, is a different mental act than to trust a neighbor not to > harm > > > you. The former is concerned with classification (i.e. this is good, > this > > > is evil) while the latter is concerned with prudential judgment (I > > predict > > > that you will not burn my house down). So once again, both acts can be > > > present: I can judge (whether accurately or not) that someone's burning > > > down my house would be an evil act even as I also judge (whether > > accurately > > > or not) that I do not think you will commit this act. Then if you do > > > actually burn down my house, I will know that my trust was misplaced; > the > > > house will go up in smoke, but the classification of arson as evil will > > be > > > quite untouched by those flames. > > > > > > It's true that if this happened, I would no longer trust you not to > burn > > > my house down. And yes, it's also possible, depending on how much I > > trusted > > > you to begin with, that I might start to doubt, in general, my judgment > > of > > > who is trustworthy and who is not. But to lose trust in others or in > > one's > > > ability to assess the trustworthiness of others is not the same as > losing > > > the sense that some things are moral and that other things are immoral. > > > > > > I too find Lance and Margot to be untrustworthy in serious ways. The > acts > > > that reveal their untrustworthiness are also acts I understand to be > > > objectively immoral. I would argue further that to even speak of trust > > and > > > distrust once again implies an objective sense of morality in the one > who > > > trusts or distrusts. What makes us trust someone are typically things > > > understood to be morally good: honesty, forthrightness, patience, > > > stability, etc.. What makes us distrust someone are typically things > > > understood to be morally bad: lying, deception, short-temperedness, > > > fickleness, etc.. We know these things. Deep down. > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/attachments/20200801/b15d82af/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Percy-L mailing list > > Percy-L at lists.ibiblio.org > > https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 1 > > *************************************** > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/attachments/20200802/1f708b64/attachment.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Percy-L mailing list > Percy-L at lists.ibiblio.org > https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 2 > *************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhonda_mcdonnell at msn.com Sun Aug 2 15:49:23 2020 From: rhonda_mcdonnell at msn.com (RHONDA MCDONNELL) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 19:49:23 +0000 Subject: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Gentlemen, I am enjoying eavesdropping on your discussion so much. While my brain is too tied up with other Percy matters at present to match the level of discourse y?all have going, I am avidly following along and appreciating Percy being discussed as the philosopher he was. Write on, Rhonda Sent from my iPad On Aug 2, 2020, at 3:03 PM, Michael Larson wrote: ? Tom, Thanks for the post. I think I am using the term "rhetoric" in a broader sense than you are. That is to say, I am not using it as a synonym for "persuasion," though persuasive effect would certainly be a component of rhetoric. Then again, so would critical thinking--as well as the use of logic and grammar, to round out the classical trivium--and several other skills. The rhetorical act involves everything, from start to finish, that goes into the eventual communication of what one believes to be true. It is possible to be very skilled in many or all of those components and still to misapprehend the objective truth of the thing being examined. That was the point I was making. It follows, then, from my use of "rhetoric" that "critical thinking," especially in the way that you have defined it (i.e. as a conscious attempt to discover truth, often in consultation with the arguments of others) cannot be, or at least should not be, divorced from the art of rhetoric. If it is divorced, it is more likely to be sophistry than rhetoric. My use of "elegance" and "cohesion" was merely the naming of two specific elements of rhetoric, not meant to be comprehensive but rather to illustrate how portions of a skill set might be differentiated from the objective truth toward which the skill set is being employed. The following statement of yours is interesting: "... regardless of how sure we may be that we've tp what's true, it never flips over into The Truth once and for all. Every conclusion, having better or worse reasons for believing it is true, is open to debate. This is, I think, is the inescapable predicament of finite bodies that think in an infinite universe." What you describe here is definitely accurate with regards to the individual who is attempting to perceive a truth that cannot be proven deductively. Lacking infinite knowledge, we must always make our assertions in the framework of what is more or less probable. Aristotle explains this well in his discussion of inductive reasoning in the service of rhetoric. However, from the side of whatever is actually true (about whatever is under consideration), the once-and-for-all-ness is not subject to human error or ignorance or blindness. In other words, the objective truth doesn't need an escape clause, like we do, to change positions based on new information. Let's take the Catholic Church's claim to be the divinely appointed authority (and consequent protection from error) in matters of faith and morals. That claim is either objectively true, or it is not. Individuals can examine the claim, as Percy did, and decide it is more or less probable and make their decisions accordingly, but the reality of the situation just is what it is, regardless of the finite mind's ability to assess the odds. When you say this, "If that's Lance's confession, it sounds more like a kind politician's unapologetic 'apology' to me. I really don't see how it could warrant any kind of absolution or release," I am in complete agreement with you. And the rest of your analysis in that paragraph seems spot on to me as well. That's why I said, in the very beginning of this discussion, that Lance is surely not about to be "absolved" by Percival when the novel ends. Yes, of course, his "confession" has been cathartic, and he believes he has found the means of a restart, as you call it. But that is not how Percival sees it. He has something more to tell Lance. The whole novel has been leading up to this moment where Lance feels finally purged of his side of the story and is now ready to move on and live (self) righteously in defiance of a world gone mad. And now Percival is finally ready and willing to speak. Brilliantly, his words will occur off camera. In your final paragraph, you seem to be saying that Percy himself is, through the novel, changing the notion of sacramental confession into existential confession, as Lance perhaps does. But this is to ignore the role of Percival, who, in the final pages of the novel, could not be more clearly distinguished from Lance. And your speculation that Percy is rejecting "the illusions of an objective moral code or truth" seems entirely unfounded, given that neither Lance nor Percival makes such a rejection. In fact, they are united in their opposition to the modern world, which has indeed abandoned the notion of objective truth. Their solutions to that problem, however, are quite different. Best, Mike On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 11:00 AM > wrote: Send Percy-L mailing list submissions to percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to percy-l-request at lists.ibiblio.org You can reach the person managing the list at percy-l-owner at lists.ibiblio.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Percy-L digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 25 (Thomas Gollier) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 15:25:03 -0700 From: Thomas Gollier > To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 25 Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Mike, Good to hear from you. You brought me up short with your reference to me teaching a "rhetorical skill set," since I'm adamantly opposed to mixing rhetoric, in the sense of persuading others, with critical thinking. However, the standard of "consistent and complete" ? I not sure where "elegant and cohesive" came from ? is the basis of persuading others, but critical thinking, while it uses the same standard, is more concerned with persuading oneself as to what one should believe is true. Critical thinking, at its best, is a self-conscious back-and-forth collective effort toward discovering truth. While "consistent" may be deductive, however, "completeness" is inductive, so regardless of how sure we may be that we've tp what's true, it never flips over into The Truth once and for all. Every conclusion, having better or worse reasons for believing it is true, is open to debate. This is, I think, is the inescapable predicament of finite bodies that think in an infinite universe. What I found more interesting, though, and that you find, presumably on the basis of an objective moral code, both "Lance *and* Margot to be untrustworthy in serious ways." If that's Lance's confession, it sounds more like a kind politician's unapologetic "apology" to me. I really don't see how it could warrant any kind of absolution or release. At first, their relationship was "transactional." He offered the Southern aristocracy; she offered Texas money. And, they did seem to share the common objective of refurbishing of their house. But when the house was done, he remarks, she seemed to be done too. If the relationship were purely transactional, the transaction was completed, and each could have simply moved on. But no, the confession consists in the explanation or recounting of how something more had formed in their marriage, what I am calling a "moral bond" between them, and that she, not Lance, had betrayed it. He even seems to try to convince himself that the sexual infidelity should not be such a big deal, but it is, and it irrevocably broke that bond between them with such finality that he must have video evidence of the act itself. His "confession" is a matter of coming to understand the causes and consequences of what had happened, the crimes he had committed, so as to find the absolution or release that would allow a restart to his life. Is that even possible after such crimes? Personally, what I really like about this novel is that it sharpens the contrasts and contours of Percy's existentialism, and in the process it, somewhat paradoxically, makes his personal Catholicism more comprehensible to me. He seems to take the "confession" ? the thing that apparently attracted him to Catholicism in the first place ? and makes it into something different from the repentance and forgiveness (that is not forgiveness) it is within the Church. I would argue more generally that he rejects the depersonalizations of abstract Gods and Churches, the illusions of an objective moral code or truth. Perhaps that's a bit speculative? But he does, I think, try to the bring or give what truth those things can have for us to bear on our actual existence. Thanks Tom On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 1:35 PM Michael Larson > wrote: > Tom, > > You're not annoying me. I appreciate the dialogue. I'll try to respond. > > I'll start with your question: " How does the notion of a 'hierarchy of > subjectivity' come from the possibility of infinite subjective > interpretations and the fact some of those interpretations are better than > others?" > > It comes contained in the last part of your question itself: "... the fact > that some of those interpretations are better than others." If some > interpretations are better than others, a hierarchy is by nature already > established and an objective standard is likewise already implied. > > When you speak of how you grade student writing, you are talking about > evaluating their display of a rhetorical skill set, not about their grasp > of the truth. Those are two different things. Either one can be judged > hierarchically. Elegance and cohesiveness of communication make a scale > that is independent of what is true. One person may offer an elegant > defense and plenty of cohesive reasoning as to why the earth is flat. > Another person might stumble through a weak defense of the spinning globe. > We might rank the former ahead of the latter in the skill set of rhetoric, > but we might rank the latter ahead of the former in his apprehension of the > truth as to the physical nature of the earth. > > The same is true when we look at a piece of literature: one person might > write beautifully about something that goes quite astray of what the story > means while another person might struggle in attempting to articulate what > is essentially a deep understanding of that same story. Of course, we are > most pleased when the two skills--communication and apprehension--are > joined in a single work. Take, for example, Tolkien's marvelous essay (a > lecture, actually), "The Monsters and the Critics." Prior to that lecture, > many well-known scholars had failed to grasp both the artistic genius and > the deep layers of meaning in *Beowulf*. In fact, they disdained many of > the very things that Tolkien was able to rescue--and not because his > subjective interpretation was more popular. It wasn't. In fact, it wasn't > fully known until he put it into words, but when he did, many objective > truths about the poem were made manifest to anyone who cared to see them > and especially to those who had always had a sense for them but lacked the > articulation. In short, Tolkien's interpretation was better than that of > prior critics, and people knew it. They knew it because it is possible for > humans to recognize when something is objectively true, especially when it > provides relief against that which has been less than fully true. > > What I am asserting here seems in direct opposition to what you say a > little later in your post: "I propose to my students that the reason for > objectively seeking out different interpretations is not to pick the right > one." My first thought about this is that there might not be a "right one." > The presence of several interpretations is no guarantee that any of them > has a good grasp on what is being interpreted. Alternatively, they might > all be basically "right," more or less, though perhaps with differing > levels of rhetorical effectiveness. In any case, I would always encourage > my students to compare and contrast, to evaluate arguments, to measure what > they read against reality, insofar as they have access to it. When the > object is truth, then everyone--critics and readers--is essentially working > together toward the same goal, though some with more success than others. > > But it sounds like, for you, the object is not so much truth as it is to > work out a kind of subjective *average *in one's own mind. You say, "[The > reason for seeking out different interpretations] is to get a non-objective > sense of the center and most comprehensive comprehension of all those > various interpretations." There is nothing wrong, of course, with > understanding a variety of interpretations, but if the end of that > understanding is merely to find the center of that variety, then we have > diverted our gaze from the object under consideration and shifted it to the > amalgamated opinion of the considerers. This is not exactly pure > subjectivism, which would be interested only in one's own opinion, but it > is a kind of preoccupation with potential means rather than the use of > those means toward their natural end: to arrive at truth regarding the > object under consideration. > > In your paragraph about morality, I'm not sure I follow the shift from > moral code to moral bond. To recognize a moral code, whether subjective or > objective, is a different mental act than to trust a neighbor not to harm > you. The former is concerned with classification (i.e. this is good, this > is evil) while the latter is concerned with prudential judgment (I predict > that you will not burn my house down). So once again, both acts can be > present: I can judge (whether accurately or not) that someone's burning > down my house would be an evil act even as I also judge (whether accurately > or not) that I do not think you will commit this act. Then if you do > actually burn down my house, I will know that my trust was misplaced; the > house will go up in smoke, but the classification of arson as evil will be > quite untouched by those flames. > > It's true that if this happened, I would no longer trust you not to burn > my house down. And yes, it's also possible, depending on how much I trusted > you to begin with, that I might start to doubt, in general, my judgment of > who is trustworthy and who is not. But to lose trust in others or in one's > ability to assess the trustworthiness of others is not the same as losing > the sense that some things are moral and that other things are immoral. > > I too find Lance and Margot to be untrustworthy in serious ways. The acts > that reveal their untrustworthiness are also acts I understand to be > objectively immoral. I would argue further that to even speak of trust and > distrust once again implies an objective sense of morality in the one who > trusts or distrusts. What makes us trust someone are typically things > understood to be morally good: honesty, forthrightness, patience, > stability, etc.. What makes us distrust someone are typically things > understood to be morally bad: lying, deception, short-temperedness, > fickleness, etc.. We know these things. Deep down. > > Mike > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Percy-L mailing list Percy-L at lists.ibiblio.org https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l ------------------------------ End of Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 1 *************************************** ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tgollier at gmail.com Tue Aug 4 10:15:04 2020 From: tgollier at gmail.com (Thomas Gollier) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 07:15:04 -0700 Subject: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mike and Bob, I don't disagree with you that Lance's is not a Catholic kind of confession. He never shows any remorse or repentance for murdering his wife and several others, and hence there could be no absolution. What's more, if we go along with the idea that he killed himself in the explosion, then we definitely have a "knight mired in his sin, unable to respond to the presence of the Blessed Sacrament." Nevertheless, Lance is released from wherever it is that this novel is taking place. When it comes to Percival and Anna, who are also being released, there are no confessions, Catholic or otherwise. Percival seems to come to an understanding, via Lance's arguments against the Church but also, I think, in recognizing the impossibility Lance faces with regard to Church doctrine, the importance of his listening to Lance's recounting on a personal level. He has resolved to pursue his religion on the more personal level of a local priest. And Anna, who through Lance's interventions, resolves to rejoin the community of human interactions on her own terms. None of these alternatives involves a "confession" per se, but all involve human intercourse that attains some kind of understanding resulting in their release and a chance to re-start their lives on a firmer basis. My argument is that Percy is presenting these alternatives, not for us to choose and defend the right one, but rather to give us a glimpse of an all but imperceptible and unnameable universal that underlies or animates them all, including the traditional Catholic alternative. He propels us to imagine other alternatives to psychiatrists and parole boards rather than priests, to parents, lovers, and friends, to recountings of all sorts that lead to understanding the causes and consequences of where we're at, so we can find a release from that place and restart our lives. These alternatives are all better or worse, relevant or irrelevant for various situations, but there is a universal, inherent in all of them and traversing all situations, that is the key, the "holy grail" of these "searches." At this point, though, I have to admit I don't have much concern for what Percy himself thought about all this. I run into the same problem with Peirce scholars. It reminds me of a cartoon with two polar bears standing outside an igloo and the one saying: "That's just the way I like them, crunchy on the outside and chewy on the inside." The crunchy discussions for me, like the novel itself, are just a tasty way to get at what's chewy on the inside. Thanks again, Tom On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 12:03 PM Michael Larson wrote: > Tom, > > Thanks for the post. > > I think I am using the term "rhetoric" in a broader sense than you are. > That is to say, I am not using it as a synonym for "persuasion," though > persuasive effect would certainly be a component of rhetoric. Then again, > so would critical thinking--as well as the use of logic and grammar, to > round out the classical trivium--and several other skills. The rhetorical > act involves everything, from start to finish, that goes into the eventual > communication of what one believes to be true. It is possible to be very > skilled in many or all of those components and still to misapprehend the > objective truth of the thing being examined. That was the point I was > making. It follows, then, from my use of "rhetoric" that "critical > thinking," especially in the way that you have defined it (i.e. as a > conscious attempt to discover truth, often in consultation with the > arguments of others) cannot be, or at least should not be, divorced from > the art of rhetoric. If it is divorced, it is more likely to be sophistry > than rhetoric. > > My use of "elegance" and "cohesion" was merely the naming of two specific > elements of rhetoric, not meant to be comprehensive but rather to > illustrate how portions of a skill set might be differentiated from the > objective truth toward which the skill set is being employed. > > The following statement of yours is interesting: > > "... regardless of how sure we may be that we've tp what's true, it never > flips over into The Truth once and for all. Every conclusion, having better > or worse reasons for believing it is true, is open to debate. This is, I > think, is the inescapable predicament of finite bodies that think in an > infinite universe." > > What you describe here is definitely accurate with regards to the > individual who is attempting to perceive a truth that cannot be proven > deductively. Lacking infinite knowledge, we must always make our assertions > in the framework of what is more or less probable. Aristotle explains this > well in his discussion of inductive reasoning in the service of rhetoric. > However, from the side of whatever is actually true (about whatever is > under consideration), the once-and-for-all-ness is not subject to human > error or ignorance or blindness. In other words, the objective truth > doesn't need an escape clause, like we do, to change positions based on new > information. > > Let's take the Catholic Church's claim to be the divinely appointed > authority (and consequent protection from error) in matters of faith and > morals. That claim is either objectively true, or it is not. Individuals > can examine the claim, as Percy did, and decide it is more or less probable > and make their decisions accordingly, but the reality of the situation just > is what it is, regardless of the finite mind's ability to assess the odds. > > When you say this, "If that's Lance's confession, it sounds more like a > kind politician's unapologetic 'apology' to me. I really don't see how it > could warrant any kind of absolution or release," I am in complete > agreement with you. And the rest of your analysis in that paragraph seems > spot on to me as well. That's why I said, in the very beginning of this > discussion, that Lance is surely not about to be "absolved" by Percival > when the novel ends. Yes, of course, his "confession" has been cathartic, > and he believes he has found the means of a restart, as you call it. But > that is not how Percival sees it. He has something more to tell Lance. The > whole novel has been leading up to this moment where Lance feels finally > purged of his side of the story and is now ready to move on and live (self) > righteously in defiance of a world gone mad. And now Percival is finally > ready and willing to speak. Brilliantly, his words will occur off camera. > > In your final paragraph, you seem to be saying that Percy himself is, > through the novel, changing the notion of sacramental confession into > existential confession, as Lance perhaps does. But this is to ignore the > role of Percival, who, in the final pages of the novel, could not be more > clearly distinguished from Lance. And your speculation that Percy is > rejecting "the illusions of an objective moral code or truth" seems > entirely unfounded, given that neither Lance nor Percival makes such a > rejection. In fact, they are united in their opposition to the modern > world, which has indeed abandoned the notion of objective truth. Their > solutions to that problem, however, are quite different. > > Best, > Mike > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dabeck at iupui.edu Tue Aug 4 21:13:38 2020 From: dabeck at iupui.edu (Beck, David A) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 01:13:38 +0000 Subject: [percy-l] O'Connor In-Reply-To: References: , , Message-ID: <1596590018622.43620@iupui.edu> While I know this is a Percy list, I wanted to send this article and see what others thought. I was saddened by an article on Flannery O'Connor, by Paul Elie, a writer I used to respect and met at a Percy conference. I'm wondering if this treatment will happen to Percy at some point. Sad. https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/cancelling-flannery-oconnor?utm_content=buffere0f78&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer&fbclid=IwAR3JFBpjo4b7KsRAK8eaR2vg035SMSon5aqM1EYvXa4yyRh6sZN5T0Pu_7k David Beck Senior Lecturer English Department Indiana University and Purdue University at Indianapolis 425 University Boulevard, CA 343-E Indianapolis, IN 46202 317-278-2550 ________________________________ From: Percy-L on behalf of RHONDA MCDONNELL Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2020 3:49 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: [External] Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 1 This message was sent from a non-IU address. Please exercise caution when clicking links or opening attachments from external sources. Gentlemen, I am enjoying eavesdropping on your discussion so much. While my brain is too tied up with other Percy matters at present to match the level of discourse y?all have going, I am avidly following along and appreciating Percy being discussed as the philosopher he was. Write on, Rhonda Sent from my iPad On Aug 2, 2020, at 3:03 PM, Michael Larson wrote: ? Tom, Thanks for the post. I think I am using the term "rhetoric" in a broader sense than you are. That is to say, I am not using it as a synonym for "persuasion," though persuasive effect would certainly be a component of rhetoric. Then again, so would critical thinking--as well as the use of logic and grammar, to round out the classical trivium--and several other skills. The rhetorical act involves everything, from start to finish, that goes into the eventual communication of what one believes to be true. It is possible to be very skilled in many or all of those components and still to misapprehend the objective truth of the thing being examined. That was the point I was making. It follows, then, from my use of "rhetoric" that "critical thinking," especially in the way that you have defined it (i.e. as a conscious attempt to discover truth, often in consultation with the arguments of others) cannot be, or at least should not be, divorced from the art of rhetoric. If it is divorced, it is more likely to be sophistry than rhetoric. My use of "elegance" and "cohesion" was merely the naming of two specific elements of rhetoric, not meant to be comprehensive but rather to illustrate how portions of a skill set might be differentiated from the objective truth toward which the skill set is being employed. The following statement of yours is interesting: "... regardless of how sure we may be that we've tp what's true, it never flips over into The Truth once and for all. Every conclusion, having better or worse reasons for believing it is true, is open to debate. This is, I think, is the inescapable predicament of finite bodies that think in an infinite universe." What you describe here is definitely accurate with regards to the individual who is attempting to perceive a truth that cannot be proven deductively. Lacking infinite knowledge, we must always make our assertions in the framework of what is more or less probable. Aristotle explains this well in his discussion of inductive reasoning in the service of rhetoric. However, from the side of whatever is actually true (about whatever is under consideration), the once-and-for-all-ness is not subject to human error or ignorance or blindness. In other words, the objective truth doesn't need an escape clause, like we do, to change positions based on new information. Let's take the Catholic Church's claim to be the divinely appointed authority (and consequent protection from error) in matters of faith and morals. That claim is either objectively true, or it is not. Individuals can examine the claim, as Percy did, and decide it is more or less probable and make their decisions accordingly, but the reality of the situation just is what it is, regardless of the finite mind's ability to assess the odds. When you say this, "If that's Lance's confession, it sounds more like a kind politician's unapologetic 'apology' to me. I really don't see how it could warrant any kind of absolution or release," I am in complete agreement with you. And the rest of your analysis in that paragraph seems spot on to me as well. That's why I said, in the very beginning of this discussion, that Lance is surely not about to be "absolved" by Percival when the novel ends. Yes, of course, his "confession" has been cathartic, and he believes he has found the means of a restart, as you call it. But that is not how Percival sees it. He has something more to tell Lance. The whole novel has been leading up to this moment where Lance feels finally purged of his side of the story and is now ready to move on and live (self) righteously in defiance of a world gone mad. And now Percival is finally ready and willing to speak. Brilliantly, his words will occur off camera. In your final paragraph, you seem to be saying that Percy himself is, through the novel, changing the notion of sacramental confession into existential confession, as Lance perhaps does. But this is to ignore the role of Percival, who, in the final pages of the novel, could not be more clearly distinguished from Lance. And your speculation that Percy is rejecting "the illusions of an objective moral code or truth" seems entirely unfounded, given that neither Lance nor Percival makes such a rejection. In fact, they are united in their opposition to the modern world, which has indeed abandoned the notion of objective truth. Their solutions to that problem, however, are quite different. Best, Mike On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 11:00 AM > wrote: Send Percy-L mailing list submissions to percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to percy-l-request at lists.ibiblio.org You can reach the person managing the list at percy-l-owner at lists.ibiblio.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Percy-L digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 25 (Thomas Gollier) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 15:25:03 -0700 From: Thomas Gollier > To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 25 Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Mike, Good to hear from you. You brought me up short with your reference to me teaching a "rhetorical skill set," since I'm adamantly opposed to mixing rhetoric, in the sense of persuading others, with critical thinking. However, the standard of "consistent and complete" ? I not sure where "elegant and cohesive" came from ? is the basis of persuading others, but critical thinking, while it uses the same standard, is more concerned with persuading oneself as to what one should believe is true. Critical thinking, at its best, is a self-conscious back-and-forth collective effort toward discovering truth. While "consistent" may be deductive, however, "completeness" is inductive, so regardless of how sure we may be that we've tp what's true, it never flips over into The Truth once and for all. Every conclusion, having better or worse reasons for believing it is true, is open to debate. This is, I think, is the inescapable predicament of finite bodies that think in an infinite universe. What I found more interesting, though, and that you find, presumably on the basis of an objective moral code, both "Lance *and* Margot to be untrustworthy in serious ways." If that's Lance's confession, it sounds more like a kind politician's unapologetic "apology" to me. I really don't see how it could warrant any kind of absolution or release. At first, their relationship was "transactional." He offered the Southern aristocracy; she offered Texas money. And, they did seem to share the common objective of refurbishing of their house. But when the house was done, he remarks, she seemed to be done too. If the relationship were purely transactional, the transaction was completed, and each could have simply moved on. But no, the confession consists in the explanation or recounting of how something more had formed in their marriage, what I am calling a "moral bond" between them, and that she, not Lance, had betrayed it. He even seems to try to convince himself that the sexual infidelity should not be such a big deal, but it is, and it irrevocably broke that bond between them with such finality that he must have video evidence of the act itself. His "confession" is a matter of coming to understand the causes and consequences of what had happened, the crimes he had committed, so as to find the absolution or release that would allow a restart to his life. Is that even possible after such crimes? Personally, what I really like about this novel is that it sharpens the contrasts and contours of Percy's existentialism, and in the process it, somewhat paradoxically, makes his personal Catholicism more comprehensible to me. He seems to take the "confession" ? the thing that apparently attracted him to Catholicism in the first place ? and makes it into something different from the repentance and forgiveness (that is not forgiveness) it is within the Church. I would argue more generally that he rejects the depersonalizations of abstract Gods and Churches, the illusions of an objective moral code or truth. Perhaps that's a bit speculative? But he does, I think, try to the bring or give what truth those things can have for us to bear on our actual existence. Thanks Tom On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 1:35 PM Michael Larson > wrote: > Tom, > > You're not annoying me. I appreciate the dialogue. I'll try to respond. > > I'll start with your question: " How does the notion of a 'hierarchy of > subjectivity' come from the possibility of infinite subjective > interpretations and the fact some of those interpretations are better than > others?" > > It comes contained in the last part of your question itself: "... the fact > that some of those interpretations are better than others." If some > interpretations are better than others, a hierarchy is by nature already > established and an objective standard is likewise already implied. > > When you speak of how you grade student writing, you are talking about > evaluating their display of a rhetorical skill set, not about their grasp > of the truth. Those are two different things. Either one can be judged > hierarchically. Elegance and cohesiveness of communication make a scale > that is independent of what is true. One person may offer an elegant > defense and plenty of cohesive reasoning as to why the earth is flat. > Another person might stumble through a weak defense of the spinning globe. > We might rank the former ahead of the latter in the skill set of rhetoric, > but we might rank the latter ahead of the former in his apprehension of the > truth as to the physical nature of the earth. > > The same is true when we look at a piece of literature: one person might > write beautifully about something that goes quite astray of what the story > means while another person might struggle in attempting to articulate what > is essentially a deep understanding of that same story. Of course, we are > most pleased when the two skills--communication and apprehension--are > joined in a single work. Take, for example, Tolkien's marvelous essay (a > lecture, actually), "The Monsters and the Critics." Prior to that lecture, > many well-known scholars had failed to grasp both the artistic genius and > the deep layers of meaning in *Beowulf*. In fact, they disdained many of > the very things that Tolkien was able to rescue--and not because his > subjective interpretation was more popular. It wasn't. In fact, it wasn't > fully known until he put it into words, but when he did, many objective > truths about the poem were made manifest to anyone who cared to see them > and especially to those who had always had a sense for them but lacked the > articulation. In short, Tolkien's interpretation was better than that of > prior critics, and people knew it. They knew it because it is possible for > humans to recognize when something is objectively true, especially when it > provides relief against that which has been less than fully true. > > What I am asserting here seems in direct opposition to what you say a > little later in your post: "I propose to my students that the reason for > objectively seeking out different interpretations is not to pick the right > one." My first thought about this is that there might not be a "right one." > The presence of several interpretations is no guarantee that any of them > has a good grasp on what is being interpreted. Alternatively, they might > all be basically "right," more or less, though perhaps with differing > levels of rhetorical effectiveness. In any case, I would always encourage > my students to compare and contrast, to evaluate arguments, to measure what > they read against reality, insofar as they have access to it. When the > object is truth, then everyone--critics and readers--is essentially working > together toward the same goal, though some with more success than others. > > But it sounds like, for you, the object is not so much truth as it is to > work out a kind of subjective *average *in one's own mind. You say, "[The > reason for seeking out different interpretations] is to get a non-objective > sense of the center and most comprehensive comprehension of all those > various interpretations." There is nothing wrong, of course, with > understanding a variety of interpretations, but if the end of that > understanding is merely to find the center of that variety, then we have > diverted our gaze from the object under consideration and shifted it to the > amalgamated opinion of the considerers. This is not exactly pure > subjectivism, which would be interested only in one's own opinion, but it > is a kind of preoccupation with potential means rather than the use of > those means toward their natural end: to arrive at truth regarding the > object under consideration. > > In your paragraph about morality, I'm not sure I follow the shift from > moral code to moral bond. To recognize a moral code, whether subjective or > objective, is a different mental act than to trust a neighbor not to harm > you. The former is concerned with classification (i.e. this is good, this > is evil) while the latter is concerned with prudential judgment (I predict > that you will not burn my house down). So once again, both acts can be > present: I can judge (whether accurately or not) that someone's burning > down my house would be an evil act even as I also judge (whether accurately > or not) that I do not think you will commit this act. Then if you do > actually burn down my house, I will know that my trust was misplaced; the > house will go up in smoke, but the classification of arson as evil will be > quite untouched by those flames. > > It's true that if this happened, I would no longer trust you not to burn > my house down. And yes, it's also possible, depending on how much I trusted > you to begin with, that I might start to doubt, in general, my judgment of > who is trustworthy and who is not. But to lose trust in others or in one's > ability to assess the trustworthiness of others is not the same as losing > the sense that some things are moral and that other things are immoral. > > I too find Lance and Margot to be untrustworthy in serious ways. The acts > that reveal their untrustworthiness are also acts I understand to be > objectively immoral. I would argue further that to even speak of trust and > distrust once again implies an objective sense of morality in the one who > trusts or distrusts. What makes us trust someone are typically things > understood to be morally good: honesty, forthrightness, patience, > stability, etc.. What makes us distrust someone are typically things > understood to be morally bad: lying, deception, short-temperedness, > fickleness, etc.. We know these things. Deep down. > > Mike > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Percy-L mailing list Percy-L at lists.ibiblio.org https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l ------------------------------ End of Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 1 *************************************** ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From janetcantor37 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 4 22:44:16 2020 From: janetcantor37 at yahoo.com (janetcantor37 at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 02:44:16 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [percy-l] O'Connor In-Reply-To: <1596590018622.43620@iupui.edu> References: <1596590018622.43620@iupui.edu> Message-ID: <1551402739.71608.1596595456165@mail.yahoo.com> I think this is very relevant to the Percy List and I found?this decision distressing and disgusting.?How about others?Janet Cantor On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 09:13:59 PM EDT, Beck, David A wrote: While I know this is a Percy list, I wanted to send this article and see what others thought. I was saddened by an article on Flannery O'Connor, by Paul Elie, a writer I used to respect and met at a Percy conference. I'm wondering if this treatment will happen to Percy at some point. Sad. https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/cancelling-flannery-oconnor?utm_content=buffere0f78&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer&fbclid=IwAR3JFBpjo4b7KsRAK8eaR2vg035SMSon5aqM1EYvXa4yyRh6sZN5T0Pu_7k David Beck Senior Lecturer English Department Indiana University and Purdue University at Indianapolis 425 University Boulevard, CA 343-E Indianapolis, IN 46202 317-278-2550From: Percy-L on behalf of RHONDA MCDONNELL Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2020 3:49 PM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: [External] Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 1?This message was sent from a non-IU address. Please exercise caution when clicking links or opening attachments from external sources. Gentlemen, I am enjoying eavesdropping on your discussion so much. While my brain is too tied up with other Percy matters at present to match the level of discourse y?all have going, I am avidly following along and appreciating Percy being discussed as the philosopher he was.? Write on, Rhonda Sent from my iPad On Aug 2, 2020, at 3:03 PM, Michael Larson wrote: ?Tom, Thanks for the post. I think I am using the term "rhetoric" in a broader sense than you are. That is to say, I am not using it as a synonym for "persuasion," though persuasive effect would certainly be a component of rhetoric. Then again, so would critical thinking--as well as the use of logic and grammar, to round out the classical trivium--and several other skills. The rhetorical act involves everything, from start to finish, that goes into the eventual communication of what one believes to be true. It is possible to be very skilled in many or all of those components and still to misapprehend the objective truth of the thing being examined. That was the point I was making. It follows, then, from my use of "rhetoric" that "critical thinking," especially in the way that you have defined it (i.e. as a conscious attempt to discover truth, often in consultation with the arguments of others) cannot be, or at least should not be, divorced from the art of rhetoric. If it is divorced, it is more likely to be sophistry than rhetoric. My use of "elegance" and "cohesion" was merely the naming of two specific elements of rhetoric, not meant to be comprehensive but rather to illustrate how portions of a skill set might be differentiated from the objective truth toward which the skill set is being employed. The following statement of yours is interesting: "... regardless of how sure we may be that we've tp what's true, it never flips over into The Truth once and for all. Every conclusion, having better or worse reasons for believing it is true, is open to debate. This is, I think, is the inescapable predicament of finite bodies that think in an infinite universe." What you describe here is definitely accurate with regards to the individual who is attempting to perceive a truth that cannot be proven deductively. Lacking infinite knowledge, we must always make our assertions in the framework of what is more or less probable. Aristotle explains this well in his discussion of inductive reasoning in the service of rhetoric. However, from the side of whatever is actually true (about whatever is under consideration), the once-and-for-all-ness is not subject to human error or ignorance or blindness. In other words, the objective truth doesn't need an escape clause, like we do, to change positions based on new information. Let's take the Catholic Church's claim to be the divinely appointed authority (and consequent protection from error) in matters of faith and morals. That claim is either objectively true, or it is not. Individuals can examine the claim, as Percy did, and decide it is more or less probable and make their decisions accordingly, but the reality of the situation just is what it is, regardless of the finite mind's ability to assess the odds. When you say this, "If that's Lance's confession, it sounds more like a kind politician's unapologetic 'apology' to me. I really don't see how it could warrant any kind of absolution or release," I am in complete agreement with you. And the rest of your analysis in that paragraph seems spot on to me as well. That's why I said, in the very beginning of this discussion, that Lance is surely not about to be "absolved" by Percival when the novel ends. Yes, of course, his "confession" has been cathartic, and he believes he has found the means of a restart, as you call it. But that is not how Percival sees it. He has something more to tell Lance. The whole novel has been leading up to this moment where Lance feels finally purged of his side of the story and is now ready to move on and live (self) righteously in defiance of a world gone mad. And now Percival is finally ready and willing to speak. Brilliantly, his words will occur off camera. In your final paragraph, you seem to be saying that Percy himself is, through the novel, changing the notion of sacramental confession into existential confession, as Lance perhaps does. But this is to ignore the role of Percival, who, in the final pages of the novel, could not be more clearly distinguished from Lance. And your speculation that Percy is rejecting "the illusions of an objective moral code or truth" seems entirely unfounded, given that neither Lance nor Percival makes such a rejection. In fact, they are united in their opposition to the modern world, which has indeed abandoned the notion of objective truth. Their solutions to that problem, however, are quite different. Best,Mike On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 11:00 AM wrote: Send Percy-L mailing list submissions to ? ? ? ? percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit ? ? ? ? https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ? ? ? ? percy-l-request at lists.ibiblio.org You can reach the person managing the list at ? ? ? ? percy-l-owner at lists.ibiblio.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Percy-L digest..." Today's Topics: ? ?1. Re: Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 25 (Thomas Gollier) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 15:25:03 -0700 From: Thomas Gollier To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" ? ? ? ? Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 25 Message-ID: ? ? ? ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Mike, Good to hear from you. You brought me up short with your reference to me teaching a "rhetorical skill set," since I'm adamantly opposed to mixing rhetoric, in the sense of persuading others, with critical thinking. However, the standard of "consistent and complete" ? I not sure where "elegant and cohesive" came from ? is the basis of persuading others, but critical thinking, while it uses the same standard, is more concerned with persuading oneself as to what one should believe is true. Critical thinking, at its best, is a self-conscious back-and-forth collective effort toward discovering truth. While "consistent" may be deductive, however, "completeness" is inductive, so regardless of how sure we may be that we've tp what's true, it never flips over into The Truth once and for all. Every conclusion, having better or worse reasons for believing it is true, is open to debate. This is, I think, is the inescapable predicament of finite bodies that think in an infinite universe. What I found more interesting, though, and that you find, presumably on the basis of an objective moral code, both "Lance *and* Margot to be untrustworthy in serious ways." If that's Lance's confession, it sounds more like a kind politician's unapologetic "apology" to me. I really don't see how it could warrant any kind of absolution or release. At first, their relationship was "transactional." He offered the Southern aristocracy; she offered Texas money. And, they did seem to share the common objective of refurbishing of their house. But when the house was done, he remarks, she seemed to be done too. If the relationship were purely transactional, the transaction was completed, and each could have simply moved on. But no, the confession consists in the explanation or recounting of how something more had formed in their marriage, what I am calling a "moral bond" between them, and that she, not Lance, had betrayed it. He even seems to try to convince himself that the sexual infidelity should not be such a big deal, but it is, and it irrevocably broke that bond between them with such finality that he must have video evidence of the act itself. His "confession" is a matter of coming to understand the causes and consequences of what had happened, the crimes he had committed, so as to find the absolution or release that would allow a restart to his life. Is that even possible after such crimes? Personally, what I really like about this novel is that it sharpens the contrasts and contours of Percy's existentialism, and in the process it, somewhat paradoxically, makes his personal Catholicism more comprehensible to me. He seems to take the "confession" ? the thing that apparently attracted him to Catholicism in the first place ? and makes it into something different from the repentance and forgiveness (that is not forgiveness) it is within the Church. I would argue more generally that he rejects the depersonalizations of abstract Gods and Churches, the illusions of an objective moral code or truth. Perhaps that's a bit speculative? But he does, I think, try to the bring or give what truth those things can have for us to bear on our actual existence. Thanks Tom On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 1:35 PM Michael Larson wrote: > Tom, > > You're not annoying me. I appreciate the dialogue. I'll try to respond. > > I'll start with your question: " How does the notion of a 'hierarchy of > subjectivity' come from the possibility of infinite subjective > interpretations and the fact some of those interpretations are better than > others?" > > It comes contained in the last part of your question itself: "... the fact > that some of those interpretations are better than others." If some > interpretations are better than others, a hierarchy is by nature already > established and an objective standard is likewise already implied. > > When you speak of how you grade student writing, you are talking about > evaluating their display of a rhetorical skill set, not about their grasp > of the truth. Those are two different things. Either one can be judged > hierarchically. Elegance and cohesiveness of communication make a scale > that is independent of what is true. One person may offer an elegant > defense and plenty of cohesive reasoning as to why the earth is flat. > Another person might stumble through a weak defense of the spinning globe. > We might rank the former ahead of the latter in the skill set of rhetoric, > but we might rank the latter ahead of the former in his apprehension of the > truth as to the physical nature of the earth. > > The same is true when we look at a piece of literature: one person might > write beautifully about something that goes quite astray of what the story > means while another person might struggle in attempting to articulate what > is essentially a deep understanding of that same story. Of course, we are > most pleased when the two skills--communication and apprehension--are > joined in a single work. Take, for example, Tolkien's marvelous essay (a > lecture, actually), "The Monsters and the Critics." Prior to that lecture, > many well-known scholars had failed to grasp both the artistic genius and > the deep layers of meaning in *Beowulf*. In fact, they disdained many of > the very things that Tolkien was able to rescue--and not because his > subjective interpretation was more popular. It wasn't. In fact, it wasn't > fully known until he put it into words, but when he did, many objective > truths about the poem were made manifest to anyone who cared to see them > and especially to those who had always had a sense for them but lacked the > articulation. In short, Tolkien's interpretation was better than that of > prior critics, and people knew it. They knew it because it is possible for > humans to recognize when something is objectively true, especially when it > provides relief against that which has been less than fully true. > > What I am asserting here seems in direct opposition to what you say a > little later in your post: "I propose to my students that the reason for > objectively seeking out different interpretations is not to pick the right > one." My first thought about this is that there might not be a "right one." > The presence of several interpretations is no guarantee that any of them > has a good grasp on what is being interpreted. Alternatively, they might > all be basically "right," more or less, though perhaps with differing > levels of rhetorical effectiveness. In any case, I would always encourage > my students to compare and contrast, to evaluate arguments, to measure what > they read against reality, insofar as they have access to it. When the > object is truth, then everyone--critics and readers--is essentially working > together toward the same goal, though some with more success than others. > > But it sounds like, for you, the object is not so much truth as it is to > work out a kind of subjective *average *in one's own mind. You say, "[The > reason for seeking out different interpretations] is to get a non-objective > sense of the center and most comprehensive comprehension of all those > various interpretations." There is nothing wrong, of course, with > understanding a variety of interpretations, but if the end of that > understanding is merely to find the center of that variety, then we have > diverted our gaze from the object under consideration and shifted it to the > amalgamated opinion of the considerers. This is not exactly pure > subjectivism, which would be interested only in one's own opinion, but it > is a kind of preoccupation with potential means rather than the use of > those means toward their natural end: to arrive at truth regarding the > object under consideration. > > In your paragraph about morality, I'm not sure I follow the shift from > moral code to moral bond. To recognize a moral code, whether subjective or > objective, is a different mental act than to trust a neighbor not to harm > you. The former is concerned with classification (i.e. this is good, this > is evil) while the latter is concerned with prudential judgment (I predict > that you will not burn my house down). So once again, both acts can be > present: I can judge (whether accurately or not) that someone's burning > down my house would be an evil act even as I also judge (whether accurately > or not) that I do not think you will commit this act. Then if you do > actually burn down my house, I will know that my trust was misplaced; the > house will go up in smoke, but the classification of arson as evil will be > quite untouched by those flames. > > It's true that if this happened, I would no longer trust you not to burn > my house down. And yes, it's also possible, depending on how much I trusted > you to begin with, that I might start to doubt, in general, my judgment of > who is trustworthy and who is not. But to lose trust in others or in one's > ability to assess the trustworthiness of others is not the same as losing > the sense that some things are moral and that other things are immoral. > > I too find Lance and Margot to be untrustworthy in serious ways. The acts > that reveal their untrustworthiness are also acts I understand to be > objectively immoral. I would argue further that to even speak of trust and > distrust once again implies an objective sense of morality in the one who > trusts or distrusts. What makes us trust someone are typically things > understood to be morally good: honesty, forthrightness, patience, > stability, etc.. What makes us distrust someone are typically things > understood to be morally bad: lying, deception, short-temperedness, > fickleness, etc.. We know these things. Deep down. > > Mike > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Percy-L mailing list Percy-L at lists.ibiblio.org https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l ------------------------------ End of Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 1 *************************************** ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larsonovic at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 11:26:51 2020 From: larsonovic at gmail.com (Michael Larson) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 10:26:51 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Tom, Despite the first line of your fourth paragraph, I think you do have concern for what Percy thought about what he was doing in this novel. The first line of your third paragraph indicates this, and the analysis that follows in that paragraph seems to me, in light of our several exchanges, to be at the heart of your interpretation of and appreciation for the novel--that through "recountings of all sorts," people can find "release" and the capacity to "restart." I don't disagree with this general idea, and certainly it blends with Percy's interest in semiotics (i.e. the peculiarity among creation of the human capacity to traffic in symbols), but I would also contend that this interpretation stops short of acknowledging the conscious, dramatic insinuation on Percy's part that Lance is mistaken about something and that Percival is going to tell him what it is, maybe even help him. In other words, the end for Percy is not the mere process of individual release and restart. If it were, then there would be no need to end the novel on Percival's reverberating *Yes*. Best, Mike On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 11:04 AM wrote: > Send Percy-L mailing list submissions to > percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > percy-l-request at lists.ibiblio.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > percy-l-owner at lists.ibiblio.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Percy-L digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 1 (Thomas Gollier) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 07:15:04 -0700 > From: Thomas Gollier > To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 1 > Message-ID: > CcE0SZLVkBUdQunw at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Mike and Bob, > > I don't disagree with you that Lance's is not a Catholic kind of > confession. He never shows any remorse or > repentance for murdering his wife and several others, and hence there could > be no absolution. What's more, if we > go along with the idea that he killed himself in the explosion, then we > definitely have a "knight mired in his sin, > unable to respond to the presence of the Blessed Sacrament." Nevertheless, > Lance is released from wherever it > is that this novel is taking place. > > When it comes to Percival and Anna, who are also being released, there are > no confessions, Catholic or otherwise. > Percival seems to come to an understanding, via Lance's arguments against > the Church but also, I think, in > recognizing the impossibility Lance faces with regard to Church doctrine, > the importance of his listening to Lance's > recounting on a personal level. He has resolved to pursue his religion on > the more personal level of a local priest. > And Anna, who through Lance's interventions, resolves to rejoin the > community of human interactions on her own > terms. None of these alternatives involves a "confession" per se, but all > involve human intercourse that attains > some kind of understanding resulting in their release and a chance to > re-start their lives on a firmer basis. > > My argument is that Percy is presenting these alternatives, not for us to > choose and defend the right one, but > rather to give us a glimpse of an all but imperceptible and unnameable > universal that underlies or animates them > all, including the traditional Catholic alternative. He propels us to > imagine other alternatives to psychiatrists > and parole boards rather than priests, to parents, lovers, and friends, to > recountings of all sorts that lead to > understanding the causes and consequences of where we're at, so we can find > a release from that place and restart > our lives. These alternatives are all better or worse, relevant or > irrelevant for various situations, but there is a > universal, inherent in all of them and traversing all situations, that is > the key, the "holy grail" of these "searches." > > At this point, though, I have to admit I don't have much concern for what > Percy himself thought about all this. I run > into the same problem with Peirce scholars. It reminds me of a cartoon with > two polar bears standing outside an > igloo and the one saying: "That's just the way I like them, crunchy on the > outside and chewy on the inside." The > crunchy discussions for me, like the novel itself, are just a tasty way to > get at what's chewy on the inside. > > Thanks again, > Tom > > On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 12:03 PM Michael Larson > wrote: > > > Tom, > > > > Thanks for the post. > > > > I think I am using the term "rhetoric" in a broader sense than you are. > > That is to say, I am not using it as a synonym for "persuasion," though > > persuasive effect would certainly be a component of rhetoric. Then again, > > so would critical thinking--as well as the use of logic and grammar, to > > round out the classical trivium--and several other skills. The rhetorical > > act involves everything, from start to finish, that goes into the > eventual > > communication of what one believes to be true. It is possible to be very > > skilled in many or all of those components and still to misapprehend the > > objective truth of the thing being examined. That was the point I was > > making. It follows, then, from my use of "rhetoric" that "critical > > thinking," especially in the way that you have defined it (i.e. as a > > conscious attempt to discover truth, often in consultation with the > > arguments of others) cannot be, or at least should not be, divorced from > > the art of rhetoric. If it is divorced, it is more likely to be sophistry > > than rhetoric. > > > > My use of "elegance" and "cohesion" was merely the naming of two specific > > elements of rhetoric, not meant to be comprehensive but rather to > > illustrate how portions of a skill set might be differentiated from the > > objective truth toward which the skill set is being employed. > > > > The following statement of yours is interesting: > > > > "... regardless of how sure we may be that we've tp what's true, it never > > flips over into The Truth once and for all. Every conclusion, having > better > > or worse reasons for believing it is true, is open to debate. This is, I > > think, is the inescapable predicament of finite bodies that think in an > > infinite universe." > > > > What you describe here is definitely accurate with regards to the > > individual who is attempting to perceive a truth that cannot be proven > > deductively. Lacking infinite knowledge, we must always make our > assertions > > in the framework of what is more or less probable. Aristotle explains > this > > well in his discussion of inductive reasoning in the service of rhetoric. > > However, from the side of whatever is actually true (about whatever is > > under consideration), the once-and-for-all-ness is not subject to human > > error or ignorance or blindness. In other words, the objective truth > > doesn't need an escape clause, like we do, to change positions based on > new > > information. > > > > Let's take the Catholic Church's claim to be the divinely appointed > > authority (and consequent protection from error) in matters of faith and > > morals. That claim is either objectively true, or it is not. Individuals > > can examine the claim, as Percy did, and decide it is more or less > probable > > and make their decisions accordingly, but the reality of the situation > just > > is what it is, regardless of the finite mind's ability to assess the > odds. > > > > When you say this, "If that's Lance's confession, it sounds more like a > > kind politician's unapologetic 'apology' to me. I really don't see how it > > could warrant any kind of absolution or release," I am in complete > > agreement with you. And the rest of your analysis in that paragraph seems > > spot on to me as well. That's why I said, in the very beginning of this > > discussion, that Lance is surely not about to be "absolved" by Percival > > when the novel ends. Yes, of course, his "confession" has been cathartic, > > and he believes he has found the means of a restart, as you call it. But > > that is not how Percival sees it. He has something more to tell Lance. > The > > whole novel has been leading up to this moment where Lance feels finally > > purged of his side of the story and is now ready to move on and live > (self) > > righteously in defiance of a world gone mad. And now Percival is finally > > ready and willing to speak. Brilliantly, his words will occur off camera. > > > > In your final paragraph, you seem to be saying that Percy himself is, > > through the novel, changing the notion of sacramental confession into > > existential confession, as Lance perhaps does. But this is to ignore the > > role of Percival, who, in the final pages of the novel, could not be more > > clearly distinguished from Lance. And your speculation that Percy is > > rejecting "the illusions of an objective moral code or truth" seems > > entirely unfounded, given that neither Lance nor Percival makes such a > > rejection. In fact, they are united in their opposition to the modern > > world, which has indeed abandoned the notion of objective truth. Their > > solutions to that problem, however, are quite different. > > > > Best, > > Mike > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/attachments/20200804/3509d08e/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Percy-L mailing list > Percy-L at lists.ibiblio.org > https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 5 > *************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joe.francisco4591 at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 13:47:19 2020 From: joe.francisco4591 at gmail.com (Joseph Francisco) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 13:47:19 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] O'Connor In-Reply-To: <1551402739.71608.1596595456165@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1596590018622.43620@iupui.edu> <1551402739.71608.1596595456165@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Janet, Well, I guess what I think about that is that if we're going to name a hall after a writer, it should be based on the quality of her writing! Sure, that could be cancelled out if the writer had committed some heinous act, but...a letter that she wrote when she was 18? After reading Elie's piece (also disappointed with him, I think he has lost my respect as well), here are my reflections: A prime consideration when reading and interpreting her work should be (in my opinion) that the chief subject of her work is often the prideful intellectual who has forsaken God (repentance and return still possible though). From this subject matter follows her more well known subject matter, namely: Grace. You need to emphasize the prideful qualities of the character in order to later show the intervention of divine Grace. It is my belief that some full-time innerlektuals are blind to this consideration. Now, before I proceed, let me say that no doubt, Flannery saw that quality in herself (probably following the MFA school maxim "write what you know"), and no doubt, those of us (self included) who are drawn to her work are probably at least partly drawn because of the same in themselves! Hah! Mea culpa... All good literary stories contain a hierarchy of values, i.e. the conclusion of the story will show us that X is better than Z; or it is better to be X than Z, etc... I think that the conclusion in a lot of her stories is that what is often taken for virtue today, is, in her view, in fact the vice of pride. Main example: That story where the do-gooding recreation director takes in the club-footed boy with the hope of, shall we say, civilizing him or even...fixing him. Result of story: his own son dead. Moral of story: we have enough on our hands with fixing ourselves; but often pride causes us to try to fix others (to our, and sometimes others, demise). Which brings me to Elie's misinterpretation of "The Enduring Chill." He reads the moment where the son (a failed and self-pitying intellectual home from his apartment in New York, sick with...something) offers a smoke to the two black farm hands as "trying to affirm equality with the black workers on his mother's farm." Let's think about the end of the story for a minute: (IIRC) part of the reason he was sick was because he drank milk while he was in the factory, trying to gin up another [forced] 'moment of equality' with the farmhands. Drinking the milk was THE THING that his mother told him not to do (along with smoking in the factory)!!! (READ: Pride, disobedience; goes before the Fall). And exactly what the farmhands say at the end: "That THE THING she don't like" (something like that). Therefore, we should read the act of offering a smoke in the factory as a prideful act of disobedience, rather than as a 'beautiful transcendent moment of equality.' ...and don't you see what is happening here? The boy is NOT to be lauded, even from a liberal perspective! This is because to him, the black men exist only to affirm something about himself!!! His own tolerance, munificence, transcendence, wokeness... I could go on here, as I have found a few other things that struck me as false in Elie's essay. But it is getting rather long, and I prefer to keep things brief. My closing comment is that the misreading of O'Connor in fact reveals to us the very nature of the modern age as Flannery saw it: (I can't remember the exact word, but something like frightening, distorted, etc...). --Joe Francisco On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 10:44 PM janetcantor37--- via Percy-L < percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org> wrote: > I think this is very relevant to the Percy List and I found this decision > distressing and disgusting. > How about others? > Janet Cantor > > On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 09:13:59 PM EDT, Beck, David A < > dabeck at iupui.edu> wrote: > > > While I know this is a Percy list, I wanted to send this article and see > what others thought. I was saddened by an article on Flannery O'Connor, by > Paul Elie, a writer I used to respect and met at a Percy conference. I'm > wondering if this treatment will happen to Percy at some point. Sad. > > > > https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/cancelling-flannery-oconnor?utm_content=buffere0f78&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer&fbclid=IwAR3JFBpjo4b7KsRAK8eaR2vg035SMSon5aqM1EYvXa4yyRh6sZN5T0Pu_7k > > > > David Beck > Senior Lecturer > English Department > Indiana University and Purdue University at Indianapolis > 425 University Boulevard, CA 343-E > Indianapolis, IN 46202 > 317-278-2550 > ------------------------------ > *From:* Percy-L on > behalf of RHONDA MCDONNELL > *Sent:* Sunday, August 2, 2020 3:49 PM > *To:* Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion > *Subject:* [External] Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 1 > > This message was sent from a non-IU address. Please exercise caution when > clicking links or opening attachments from external sources. > > Gentlemen, > > I am enjoying eavesdropping on your discussion so much. While my brain is > too tied up with other Percy matters at present to match the level of > discourse y?all have going, I am avidly following along and appreciating > Percy being discussed as the philosopher he was. > > Write on, > > Rhonda > > Sent from my iPad > > On Aug 2, 2020, at 3:03 PM, Michael Larson wrote: > > ? > Tom, > > Thanks for the post. > > I think I am using the term "rhetoric" in a broader sense than you are. > That is to say, I am not using it as a synonym for "persuasion," though > persuasive effect would certainly be a component of rhetoric. Then again, > so would critical thinking--as well as the use of logic and grammar, to > round out the classical trivium--and several other skills. The rhetorical > act involves everything, from start to finish, that goes into the eventual > communication of what one believes to be true. It is possible to be very > skilled in many or all of those components and still to misapprehend the > objective truth of the thing being examined. That was the point I was > making. It follows, then, from my use of "rhetoric" that "critical > thinking," especially in the way that you have defined it (i.e. as a > conscious attempt to discover truth, often in consultation with the > arguments of others) cannot be, or at least should not be, divorced from > the art of rhetoric. If it is divorced, it is more likely to be sophistry > than rhetoric. > > My use of "elegance" and "cohesion" was merely the naming of two specific > elements of rhetoric, not meant to be comprehensive but rather to > illustrate how portions of a skill set might be differentiated from the > objective truth toward which the skill set is being employed. > > The following statement of yours is interesting: > > "... regardless of how sure we may be that we've tp what's true, it never > flips over into The Truth once and for all. Every conclusion, having better > or worse reasons for believing it is true, is open to debate. This is, I > think, is the inescapable predicament of finite bodies that think in an > infinite universe." > > What you describe here is definitely accurate with regards to the > individual who is attempting to perceive a truth that cannot be proven > deductively. Lacking infinite knowledge, we must always make our assertions > in the framework of what is more or less probable. Aristotle explains this > well in his discussion of inductive reasoning in the service of rhetoric. > However, from the side of whatever is actually true (about whatever is > under consideration), the once-and-for-all-ness is not subject to human > error or ignorance or blindness. In other words, the objective truth > doesn't need an escape clause, like we do, to change positions based on new > information. > > Let's take the Catholic Church's claim to be the divinely appointed > authority (and consequent protection from error) in matters of faith and > morals. That claim is either objectively true, or it is not. Individuals > can examine the claim, as Percy did, and decide it is more or less probable > and make their decisions accordingly, but the reality of the situation just > is what it is, regardless of the finite mind's ability to assess the odds. > > When you say this, "If that's Lance's confession, it sounds more like a > kind politician's unapologetic 'apology' to me. I really don't see how it > could warrant any kind of absolution or release," I am in complete > agreement with you. And the rest of your analysis in that paragraph seems > spot on to me as well. That's why I said, in the very beginning of this > discussion, that Lance is surely not about to be "absolved" by Percival > when the novel ends. Yes, of course, his "confession" has been cathartic, > and he believes he has found the means of a restart, as you call it. But > that is not how Percival sees it. He has something more to tell Lance. The > whole novel has been leading up to this moment where Lance feels finally > purged of his side of the story and is now ready to move on and live (self) > righteously in defiance of a world gone mad. And now Percival is finally > ready and willing to speak. Brilliantly, his words will occur off camera. > > In your final paragraph, you seem to be saying that Percy himself is, > through the novel, changing the notion of sacramental confession into > existential confession, as Lance perhaps does. But this is to ignore the > role of Percival, who, in the final pages of the novel, could not be more > clearly distinguished from Lance. And your speculation that Percy is > rejecting "the illusions of an objective moral code or truth" seems > entirely unfounded, given that neither Lance nor Percival makes such a > rejection. In fact, they are united in their opposition to the modern > world, which has indeed abandoned the notion of objective truth. Their > solutions to that problem, however, are quite different. > > Best, > Mike > > On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 11:00 AM wrote: > > Send Percy-L mailing list submissions to > percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > percy-l-request at lists.ibiblio.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > percy-l-owner at lists.ibiblio.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Percy-L digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 25 (Thomas Gollier) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 15:25:03 -0700 > From: Thomas Gollier > To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 25 > Message-ID: > hSdg at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Mike, > > Good to hear from you. > > You brought me up short with your reference to me teaching a "rhetorical > skill set," since I'm adamantly opposed to > mixing rhetoric, in the sense of persuading others, with critical thinking. > However, the standard of "consistent and > complete" ? I not sure where "elegant and cohesive" came from ? is the > basis of persuading others, but critical > thinking, while it uses the same standard, is more concerned with > persuading oneself as to what one should believe > is true. Critical thinking, at its best, is a self-conscious back-and-forth > collective effort toward discovering > truth. While "consistent" may be deductive, however, "completeness" is > inductive, so regardless of how sure we may be > that we've tp what's true, it never flips over into The Truth once and for > all. Every conclusion, having better or > worse reasons for believing it is true, is open to debate. This is, I > think, is the inescapable predicament of > finite bodies that think in an infinite universe. > > What I found more interesting, though, and that you find, presumably on the > basis of an objective moral code, both > "Lance *and* Margot to be untrustworthy in serious ways." If that's Lance's > confession, it sounds more like a kind > politician's unapologetic "apology" to me. I really don't see how it could > warrant any kind of absolution or > release. At first, their relationship was "transactional." He offered the > Southern aristocracy; she offered Texas > money. And, they did seem to share the common objective of refurbishing of > their house. But when the house was done, > he remarks, she seemed to be done too. If the relationship were purely > transactional, the transaction was completed, > and each could have simply moved on. But no, the confession consists in the > explanation or recounting of how > something more had formed in their marriage, what I am calling a "moral > bond" between them, and that she, not Lance, > had betrayed it. He even seems to try to convince himself that the sexual > infidelity should not be such a big > deal, but it is, and it irrevocably broke that bond between them with such > finality that he must have video evidence > of the act itself. His "confession" is a matter of coming to understand the > causes and consequences of what had > happened, the crimes he had committed, so as to find the absolution or > release that would allow a restart to his > life. Is that even possible after such crimes? > > Personally, what I really like about this novel is that it sharpens the > contrasts and contours of Percy's > existentialism, and in the process it, somewhat paradoxically, makes his > personal Catholicism more comprehensible to me. > He seems to take the "confession" ? the thing that apparently attracted him > to Catholicism in the first place ? and > makes it into something different from the repentance and forgiveness (that > is not forgiveness) it is within the > Church. I would argue more generally that he rejects the depersonalizations > of abstract Gods and Churches, the > illusions of an objective moral code or truth. Perhaps that's a bit > speculative? But he does, I think, try to the > bring or give what truth those things can have for us to bear on our actual > existence. > > Thanks > Tom > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 1:35 PM Michael Larson > wrote: > > > Tom, > > > > You're not annoying me. I appreciate the dialogue. I'll try to respond. > > > > I'll start with your question: " How does the notion of a 'hierarchy of > > subjectivity' come from the possibility of infinite subjective > > interpretations and the fact some of those interpretations are better > than > > others?" > > > > It comes contained in the last part of your question itself: "... the > fact > > that some of those interpretations are better than others." If some > > interpretations are better than others, a hierarchy is by nature already > > established and an objective standard is likewise already implied. > > > > When you speak of how you grade student writing, you are talking about > > evaluating their display of a rhetorical skill set, not about their grasp > > of the truth. Those are two different things. Either one can be judged > > hierarchically. Elegance and cohesiveness of communication make a scale > > that is independent of what is true. One person may offer an elegant > > defense and plenty of cohesive reasoning as to why the earth is flat. > > Another person might stumble through a weak defense of the spinning > globe. > > We might rank the former ahead of the latter in the skill set of > rhetoric, > > but we might rank the latter ahead of the former in his apprehension of > the > > truth as to the physical nature of the earth. > > > > The same is true when we look at a piece of literature: one person might > > write beautifully about something that goes quite astray of what the > story > > means while another person might struggle in attempting to articulate > what > > is essentially a deep understanding of that same story. Of course, we are > > most pleased when the two skills--communication and apprehension--are > > joined in a single work. Take, for example, Tolkien's marvelous essay (a > > lecture, actually), "The Monsters and the Critics." Prior to that > lecture, > > many well-known scholars had failed to grasp both the artistic genius and > > the deep layers of meaning in *Beowulf*. In fact, they disdained many of > > the very things that Tolkien was able to rescue--and not because his > > subjective interpretation was more popular. It wasn't. In fact, it wasn't > > fully known until he put it into words, but when he did, many objective > > truths about the poem were made manifest to anyone who cared to see them > > and especially to those who had always had a sense for them but lacked > the > > articulation. In short, Tolkien's interpretation was better than that of > > prior critics, and people knew it. They knew it because it is possible > for > > humans to recognize when something is objectively true, especially when > it > > provides relief against that which has been less than fully true. > > > > What I am asserting here seems in direct opposition to what you say a > > little later in your post: "I propose to my students that the reason for > > objectively seeking out different interpretations is not to pick the > right > > one." My first thought about this is that there might not be a "right > one." > > The presence of several interpretations is no guarantee that any of them > > has a good grasp on what is being interpreted. Alternatively, they might > > all be basically "right," more or less, though perhaps with differing > > levels of rhetorical effectiveness. In any case, I would always encourage > > my students to compare and contrast, to evaluate arguments, to measure > what > > they read against reality, insofar as they have access to it. When the > > object is truth, then everyone--critics and readers--is essentially > working > > together toward the same goal, though some with more success than others. > > > > But it sounds like, for you, the object is not so much truth as it is to > > work out a kind of subjective *average *in one's own mind. You say, "[The > > reason for seeking out different interpretations] is to get a > non-objective > > sense of the center and most comprehensive comprehension of all those > > various interpretations." There is nothing wrong, of course, with > > understanding a variety of interpretations, but if the end of that > > understanding is merely to find the center of that variety, then we have > > diverted our gaze from the object under consideration and shifted it to > the > > amalgamated opinion of the considerers. This is not exactly pure > > subjectivism, which would be interested only in one's own opinion, but it > > is a kind of preoccupation with potential means rather than the use of > > those means toward their natural end: to arrive at truth regarding the > > object under consideration. > > > > In your paragraph about morality, I'm not sure I follow the shift from > > moral code to moral bond. To recognize a moral code, whether subjective > or > > objective, is a different mental act than to trust a neighbor not to harm > > you. The former is concerned with classification (i.e. this is good, this > > is evil) while the latter is concerned with prudential judgment (I > predict > > that you will not burn my house down). So once again, both acts can be > > present: I can judge (whether accurately or not) that someone's burning > > down my house would be an evil act even as I also judge (whether > accurately > > or not) that I do not think you will commit this act. Then if you do > > actually burn down my house, I will know that my trust was misplaced; the > > house will go up in smoke, but the classification of arson as evil will > be > > quite untouched by those flames. > > > > It's true that if this happened, I would no longer trust you not to burn > > my house down. And yes, it's also possible, depending on how much I > trusted > > you to begin with, that I might start to doubt, in general, my judgment > of > > who is trustworthy and who is not. But to lose trust in others or in > one's > > ability to assess the trustworthiness of others is not the same as losing > > the sense that some things are moral and that other things are immoral. > > > > I too find Lance and Margot to be untrustworthy in serious ways. The acts > > that reveal their untrustworthiness are also acts I understand to be > > objectively immoral. I would argue further that to even speak of trust > and > > distrust once again implies an objective sense of morality in the one who > > trusts or distrusts. What makes us trust someone are typically things > > understood to be morally good: honesty, forthrightness, patience, > > stability, etc.. What makes us distrust someone are typically things > > understood to be morally bad: lying, deception, short-temperedness, > > fickleness, etc.. We know these things. Deep down. > > > > Mike > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/attachments/20200801/b15d82af/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Percy-L mailing list > Percy-L at lists.ibiblio.org > https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 1 > *************************************** > > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joe.francisco4591 at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 15:12:45 2020 From: joe.francisco4591 at gmail.com (Joseph Francisco) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 15:12:45 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] O'Connor In-Reply-To: References: <1596590018622.43620@iupui.edu> <1551402739.71608.1596595456165@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: With regards to what I have said about intellectuals, present company is, of course, excluded. Long live Percy-L. And I would add that, in a positive sense, I read her overall message as one of humility; that we are all flawed and broken, and only God is perfect. I believe that she has this in common with WP. And finally as Percy notes, (after Kierkegaard), knowing this is half the battle. Joe On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 1:47 PM Joseph Francisco wrote: > Janet, > > Well, I guess what I think about that is that if we're going to name a > hall after a writer, it should be based on the quality of her writing! > Sure, that could be cancelled out if the writer had committed some heinous > act, but...a letter that she wrote when she was 18? > > After reading Elie's piece (also disappointed with him, I think he has > lost my respect as well), here are my reflections: > > A prime consideration when reading and interpreting her work should be (in > my opinion) that the chief subject of her work is often the prideful > intellectual who has forsaken God (repentance and return still possible > though). From this subject matter follows her more well known subject > matter, namely: Grace. You need to emphasize the prideful qualities of the > character in order to later show the intervention of divine Grace. > > It is my belief that some full-time innerlektuals are blind to this > consideration. Now, before I proceed, let me say that no doubt, Flannery > saw that quality in herself (probably following the MFA school maxim "write > what you know"), and no doubt, those of us (self included) who are drawn to > her work are probably at least partly drawn because of the same in > themselves! Hah! Mea culpa... > > All good literary stories contain a hierarchy of values, i.e. the > conclusion of the story will show us that X is better than Z; or it is > better to be X than Z, etc... I think that the conclusion in a lot of her > stories is that what is often taken for virtue today, is, in her view, in > fact the vice of pride. Main example: That story where the do-gooding > recreation director takes in the club-footed boy with the hope of, shall we > say, civilizing him or even...fixing him. Result of story: his own son > dead. Moral of story: we have enough on our hands with fixing ourselves; > but often pride causes us to try to fix others (to our, and sometimes > others, demise). > > Which brings me to Elie's misinterpretation of "The Enduring Chill." He > reads the moment where the son (a failed and self-pitying intellectual home > from his apartment in New York, sick with...something) offers a smoke to > the two black farm hands as "trying to affirm equality with the black > workers on his mother's farm." Let's think about the end of the story for a > minute: (IIRC) part of the reason he was sick was because he drank milk > while he was in the factory, trying to gin up another [forced] 'moment of > equality' with the farmhands. Drinking the milk was THE THING that his > mother told him not to do (along with smoking in the factory)!!! (READ: > Pride, disobedience; goes before the Fall). And exactly what the farmhands > say at the end: "That THE THING she don't like" (something like that). > Therefore, we should read the act of offering a smoke in the factory as a > prideful act of disobedience, rather than as a 'beautiful transcendent > moment of equality.' ...and don't you see what is happening here? The boy > is NOT to be lauded, even from a liberal perspective! This is because to > him, the black men exist only to affirm something about himself!!! His own > tolerance, munificence, transcendence, wokeness... > > I could go on here, as I have found a few other things that struck me as > false in Elie's essay. But it is getting rather long, and I prefer to keep > things brief. My closing comment is that the misreading of O'Connor in fact > reveals to us the very nature of the modern age as Flannery saw it: (I > can't remember the exact word, but something like frightening, distorted, > etc...). > > --Joe Francisco > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 10:44 PM janetcantor37--- via Percy-L < > percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org> wrote: > >> I think this is very relevant to the Percy List and I found this decision >> distressing and disgusting. >> How about others? >> Janet Cantor >> >> On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 09:13:59 PM EDT, Beck, David A < >> dabeck at iupui.edu> wrote: >> >> >> While I know this is a Percy list, I wanted to send this article and see >> what others thought. I was saddened by an article on Flannery O'Connor, by >> Paul Elie, a writer I used to respect and met at a Percy conference. I'm >> wondering if this treatment will happen to Percy at some point. Sad. >> >> >> >> https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/cancelling-flannery-oconnor?utm_content=buffere0f78&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer&fbclid=IwAR3JFBpjo4b7KsRAK8eaR2vg035SMSon5aqM1EYvXa4yyRh6sZN5T0Pu_7k >> >> >> >> David Beck >> Senior Lecturer >> English Department >> Indiana University and Purdue University at Indianapolis >> 425 University Boulevard, CA 343-E >> Indianapolis, IN 46202 >> 317-278-2550 >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Percy-L on >> behalf of RHONDA MCDONNELL >> *Sent:* Sunday, August 2, 2020 3:49 PM >> *To:* Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion >> *Subject:* [External] Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 1 >> >> This message was sent from a non-IU address. Please exercise caution when >> clicking links or opening attachments from external sources. >> >> Gentlemen, >> >> I am enjoying eavesdropping on your discussion so much. While my brain is >> too tied up with other Percy matters at present to match the level of >> discourse y?all have going, I am avidly following along and appreciating >> Percy being discussed as the philosopher he was. >> >> Write on, >> >> Rhonda >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Aug 2, 2020, at 3:03 PM, Michael Larson wrote: >> >> ? >> Tom, >> >> Thanks for the post. >> >> I think I am using the term "rhetoric" in a broader sense than you are. >> That is to say, I am not using it as a synonym for "persuasion," though >> persuasive effect would certainly be a component of rhetoric. Then again, >> so would critical thinking--as well as the use of logic and grammar, to >> round out the classical trivium--and several other skills. The rhetorical >> act involves everything, from start to finish, that goes into the eventual >> communication of what one believes to be true. It is possible to be very >> skilled in many or all of those components and still to misapprehend the >> objective truth of the thing being examined. That was the point I was >> making. It follows, then, from my use of "rhetoric" that "critical >> thinking," especially in the way that you have defined it (i.e. as a >> conscious attempt to discover truth, often in consultation with the >> arguments of others) cannot be, or at least should not be, divorced from >> the art of rhetoric. If it is divorced, it is more likely to be sophistry >> than rhetoric. >> >> My use of "elegance" and "cohesion" was merely the naming of two specific >> elements of rhetoric, not meant to be comprehensive but rather to >> illustrate how portions of a skill set might be differentiated from the >> objective truth toward which the skill set is being employed. >> >> The following statement of yours is interesting: >> >> "... regardless of how sure we may be that we've tp what's true, it never >> flips over into The Truth once and for all. Every conclusion, having better >> or worse reasons for believing it is true, is open to debate. This is, I >> think, is the inescapable predicament of finite bodies that think in an >> infinite universe." >> >> What you describe here is definitely accurate with regards to the >> individual who is attempting to perceive a truth that cannot be proven >> deductively. Lacking infinite knowledge, we must always make our assertions >> in the framework of what is more or less probable. Aristotle explains this >> well in his discussion of inductive reasoning in the service of rhetoric. >> However, from the side of whatever is actually true (about whatever is >> under consideration), the once-and-for-all-ness is not subject to human >> error or ignorance or blindness. In other words, the objective truth >> doesn't need an escape clause, like we do, to change positions based on new >> information. >> >> Let's take the Catholic Church's claim to be the divinely appointed >> authority (and consequent protection from error) in matters of faith and >> morals. That claim is either objectively true, or it is not. Individuals >> can examine the claim, as Percy did, and decide it is more or less probable >> and make their decisions accordingly, but the reality of the situation just >> is what it is, regardless of the finite mind's ability to assess the odds. >> >> When you say this, "If that's Lance's confession, it sounds more like a >> kind politician's unapologetic 'apology' to me. I really don't see how it >> could warrant any kind of absolution or release," I am in complete >> agreement with you. And the rest of your analysis in that paragraph seems >> spot on to me as well. That's why I said, in the very beginning of this >> discussion, that Lance is surely not about to be "absolved" by Percival >> when the novel ends. Yes, of course, his "confession" has been cathartic, >> and he believes he has found the means of a restart, as you call it. But >> that is not how Percival sees it. He has something more to tell Lance. The >> whole novel has been leading up to this moment where Lance feels finally >> purged of his side of the story and is now ready to move on and live (self) >> righteously in defiance of a world gone mad. And now Percival is finally >> ready and willing to speak. Brilliantly, his words will occur off camera. >> >> In your final paragraph, you seem to be saying that Percy himself is, >> through the novel, changing the notion of sacramental confession into >> existential confession, as Lance perhaps does. But this is to ignore the >> role of Percival, who, in the final pages of the novel, could not be more >> clearly distinguished from Lance. And your speculation that Percy is >> rejecting "the illusions of an objective moral code or truth" seems >> entirely unfounded, given that neither Lance nor Percival makes such a >> rejection. In fact, they are united in their opposition to the modern >> world, which has indeed abandoned the notion of objective truth. Their >> solutions to that problem, however, are quite different. >> >> Best, >> Mike >> >> On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 11:00 AM >> wrote: >> >> Send Percy-L mailing list submissions to >> percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> percy-l-request at lists.ibiblio.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> percy-l-owner at lists.ibiblio.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Percy-L digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 25 (Thomas Gollier) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 15:25:03 -0700 >> From: Thomas Gollier >> To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" >> >> Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 25 >> Message-ID: >> > hSdg at mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> Mike, >> >> Good to hear from you. >> >> You brought me up short with your reference to me teaching a "rhetorical >> skill set," since I'm adamantly opposed to >> mixing rhetoric, in the sense of persuading others, with critical >> thinking. >> However, the standard of "consistent and >> complete" ? I not sure where "elegant and cohesive" came from ? is the >> basis of persuading others, but critical >> thinking, while it uses the same standard, is more concerned with >> persuading oneself as to what one should believe >> is true. Critical thinking, at its best, is a self-conscious >> back-and-forth >> collective effort toward discovering >> truth. While "consistent" may be deductive, however, "completeness" is >> inductive, so regardless of how sure we may be >> that we've tp what's true, it never flips over into The Truth once and for >> all. Every conclusion, having better or >> worse reasons for believing it is true, is open to debate. This is, I >> think, is the inescapable predicament of >> finite bodies that think in an infinite universe. >> >> What I found more interesting, though, and that you find, presumably on >> the >> basis of an objective moral code, both >> "Lance *and* Margot to be untrustworthy in serious ways." If that's >> Lance's >> confession, it sounds more like a kind >> politician's unapologetic "apology" to me. I really don't see how it could >> warrant any kind of absolution or >> release. At first, their relationship was "transactional." He offered the >> Southern aristocracy; she offered Texas >> money. And, they did seem to share the common objective of refurbishing of >> their house. But when the house was done, >> he remarks, she seemed to be done too. If the relationship were purely >> transactional, the transaction was completed, >> and each could have simply moved on. But no, the confession consists in >> the >> explanation or recounting of how >> something more had formed in their marriage, what I am calling a "moral >> bond" between them, and that she, not Lance, >> had betrayed it. He even seems to try to convince himself that the sexual >> infidelity should not be such a big >> deal, but it is, and it irrevocably broke that bond between them with such >> finality that he must have video evidence >> of the act itself. His "confession" is a matter of coming to understand >> the >> causes and consequences of what had >> happened, the crimes he had committed, so as to find the absolution or >> release that would allow a restart to his >> life. Is that even possible after such crimes? >> >> Personally, what I really like about this novel is that it sharpens the >> contrasts and contours of Percy's >> existentialism, and in the process it, somewhat paradoxically, makes his >> personal Catholicism more comprehensible to me. >> He seems to take the "confession" ? the thing that apparently attracted >> him >> to Catholicism in the first place ? and >> makes it into something different from the repentance and forgiveness >> (that >> is not forgiveness) it is within the >> Church. I would argue more generally that he rejects the >> depersonalizations >> of abstract Gods and Churches, the >> illusions of an objective moral code or truth. Perhaps that's a bit >> speculative? But he does, I think, try to the >> bring or give what truth those things can have for us to bear on our >> actual >> existence. >> >> Thanks >> Tom >> >> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 1:35 PM Michael Larson >> wrote: >> >> > Tom, >> > >> > You're not annoying me. I appreciate the dialogue. I'll try to respond. >> > >> > I'll start with your question: " How does the notion of a 'hierarchy of >> > subjectivity' come from the possibility of infinite subjective >> > interpretations and the fact some of those interpretations are better >> than >> > others?" >> > >> > It comes contained in the last part of your question itself: "... the >> fact >> > that some of those interpretations are better than others." If some >> > interpretations are better than others, a hierarchy is by nature already >> > established and an objective standard is likewise already implied. >> > >> > When you speak of how you grade student writing, you are talking about >> > evaluating their display of a rhetorical skill set, not about their >> grasp >> > of the truth. Those are two different things. Either one can be judged >> > hierarchically. Elegance and cohesiveness of communication make a scale >> > that is independent of what is true. One person may offer an elegant >> > defense and plenty of cohesive reasoning as to why the earth is flat. >> > Another person might stumble through a weak defense of the spinning >> globe. >> > We might rank the former ahead of the latter in the skill set of >> rhetoric, >> > but we might rank the latter ahead of the former in his apprehension of >> the >> > truth as to the physical nature of the earth. >> > >> > The same is true when we look at a piece of literature: one person might >> > write beautifully about something that goes quite astray of what the >> story >> > means while another person might struggle in attempting to articulate >> what >> > is essentially a deep understanding of that same story. Of course, we >> are >> > most pleased when the two skills--communication and apprehension--are >> > joined in a single work. Take, for example, Tolkien's marvelous essay (a >> > lecture, actually), "The Monsters and the Critics." Prior to that >> lecture, >> > many well-known scholars had failed to grasp both the artistic genius >> and >> > the deep layers of meaning in *Beowulf*. In fact, they disdained many of >> > the very things that Tolkien was able to rescue--and not because his >> > subjective interpretation was more popular. It wasn't. In fact, it >> wasn't >> > fully known until he put it into words, but when he did, many objective >> > truths about the poem were made manifest to anyone who cared to see them >> > and especially to those who had always had a sense for them but lacked >> the >> > articulation. In short, Tolkien's interpretation was better than that of >> > prior critics, and people knew it. They knew it because it is possible >> for >> > humans to recognize when something is objectively true, especially when >> it >> > provides relief against that which has been less than fully true. >> > >> > What I am asserting here seems in direct opposition to what you say a >> > little later in your post: "I propose to my students that the reason for >> > objectively seeking out different interpretations is not to pick the >> right >> > one." My first thought about this is that there might not be a "right >> one." >> > The presence of several interpretations is no guarantee that any of them >> > has a good grasp on what is being interpreted. Alternatively, they might >> > all be basically "right," more or less, though perhaps with differing >> > levels of rhetorical effectiveness. In any case, I would always >> encourage >> > my students to compare and contrast, to evaluate arguments, to measure >> what >> > they read against reality, insofar as they have access to it. When the >> > object is truth, then everyone--critics and readers--is essentially >> working >> > together toward the same goal, though some with more success than >> others. >> > >> > But it sounds like, for you, the object is not so much truth as it is to >> > work out a kind of subjective *average *in one's own mind. You say, >> "[The >> > reason for seeking out different interpretations] is to get a >> non-objective >> > sense of the center and most comprehensive comprehension of all those >> > various interpretations." There is nothing wrong, of course, with >> > understanding a variety of interpretations, but if the end of that >> > understanding is merely to find the center of that variety, then we have >> > diverted our gaze from the object under consideration and shifted it to >> the >> > amalgamated opinion of the considerers. This is not exactly pure >> > subjectivism, which would be interested only in one's own opinion, but >> it >> > is a kind of preoccupation with potential means rather than the use of >> > those means toward their natural end: to arrive at truth regarding the >> > object under consideration. >> > >> > In your paragraph about morality, I'm not sure I follow the shift from >> > moral code to moral bond. To recognize a moral code, whether subjective >> or >> > objective, is a different mental act than to trust a neighbor not to >> harm >> > you. The former is concerned with classification (i.e. this is good, >> this >> > is evil) while the latter is concerned with prudential judgment (I >> predict >> > that you will not burn my house down). So once again, both acts can be >> > present: I can judge (whether accurately or not) that someone's burning >> > down my house would be an evil act even as I also judge (whether >> accurately >> > or not) that I do not think you will commit this act. Then if you do >> > actually burn down my house, I will know that my trust was misplaced; >> the >> > house will go up in smoke, but the classification of arson as evil will >> be >> > quite untouched by those flames. >> > >> > It's true that if this happened, I would no longer trust you not to burn >> > my house down. And yes, it's also possible, depending on how much I >> trusted >> > you to begin with, that I might start to doubt, in general, my judgment >> of >> > who is trustworthy and who is not. But to lose trust in others or in >> one's >> > ability to assess the trustworthiness of others is not the same as >> losing >> > the sense that some things are moral and that other things are immoral. >> > >> > I too find Lance and Margot to be untrustworthy in serious ways. The >> acts >> > that reveal their untrustworthiness are also acts I understand to be >> > objectively immoral. I would argue further that to even speak of trust >> and >> > distrust once again implies an objective sense of morality in the one >> who >> > trusts or distrusts. What makes us trust someone are typically things >> > understood to be morally good: honesty, forthrightness, patience, >> > stability, etc.. What makes us distrust someone are typically things >> > understood to be morally bad: lying, deception, short-temperedness, >> > fickleness, etc.. We know these things. Deep down. >> > >> > Mike >> > >> > >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: < >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/attachments/20200801/b15d82af/attachment-0001.html >> > >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Subject: Digest Footer >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Percy-L mailing list >> Percy-L at lists.ibiblio.org >> https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> End of Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 1 >> *************************************** >> >> >> ---------------------------------- >> * Percy-L Discussion Archives: >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ >> >> * Manage Your Membership: >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l >> >> * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org >> >> * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy >> >> >> ---------------------------------- >> * Percy-L Discussion Archives: >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ >> >> * Manage Your Membership: >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l >> >> * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org >> >> * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy >> >> ---------------------------------- >> * Percy-L Discussion Archives: >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ >> >> * Manage Your Membership: >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l >> >> * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org >> >> * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larsonovic at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 16:40:57 2020 From: larsonovic at gmail.com (Michael Larson) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 15:40:57 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 10 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Though I have not read Elie's *New Yorker* article, it sounds inexcusably irresponsible, starting with the title: "How Racist Was Flannery O'Connor?" Give me a break. How opportunistic is Mr. Elie? But on another level, the author of the *Commentary* article, Angela O'Donnell, has set the stage for this. If you write a whole book about Flannery O'Connor and race, and you title it *Radical Ambivalence*, what do you expect? And if you write an article in *Commentary* trying to defend against the misrepresentation of your book, but you say that "O?Connor?s inner war between her best (anti-racist) self and her worst (racist) self is the same war that all white people who are born into and (mal)formed by a racist culture fight," then you are inviting more of the same. In that one sentence, O'Donnell is conceding several things: 1) that O'Connor's best virtue (i.e. the highest good she gives us) is her anti-racism, 2) that her worst vice is her racism (which assumes as a matter of course that she was in fact racist), and 3) that all white people in a racist culture are the same. In other words, O'Donnell is from the outset handing her opponents everything they need by agreeing implicitly with their basic assumptions and their narrow range of interest. Janet, I agree that this topic belongs on the Percy list--at least in part because of what David suggests: that Percy could come under the same crosshairs. Joe, thanks for the interesting comments about Elie's article. Good stuff. ML On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 2:14 PM wrote: > Send Percy-L mailing list submissions to > percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > percy-l-request at lists.ibiblio.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > percy-l-owner at lists.ibiblio.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Percy-L digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: O'Connor (Joseph Francisco) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 15:12:45 -0400 > From: Joseph Francisco > To: "janetcantor37 at yahoo.com" , "Percy-L: > Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > Subject: Re: [percy-l] O'Connor > Message-ID: > aGR3+SnzkUe57aVNVM_DPN730Ugvw at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > With regards to what I have said about intellectuals, present company is, > of course, excluded. Long live Percy-L. And I would add that, in a positive > sense, I read her overall message as one of humility; that we are all > flawed and broken, and only God is perfect. I believe that she has this in > common with WP. And finally as Percy notes, (after Kierkegaard), knowing > this is half the battle. > > Joe > > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 1:47 PM Joseph Francisco < > joe.francisco4591 at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Janet, > > > > Well, I guess what I think about that is that if we're going to name a > > hall after a writer, it should be based on the quality of her writing! > > Sure, that could be cancelled out if the writer had committed some > heinous > > act, but...a letter that she wrote when she was 18? > > > > After reading Elie's piece (also disappointed with him, I think he has > > lost my respect as well), here are my reflections: > > > > A prime consideration when reading and interpreting her work should be > (in > > my opinion) that the chief subject of her work is often the prideful > > intellectual who has forsaken God (repentance and return still possible > > though). From this subject matter follows her more well known subject > > matter, namely: Grace. You need to emphasize the prideful qualities of > the > > character in order to later show the intervention of divine Grace. > > > > It is my belief that some full-time innerlektuals are blind to this > > consideration. Now, before I proceed, let me say that no doubt, Flannery > > saw that quality in herself (probably following the MFA school maxim > "write > > what you know"), and no doubt, those of us (self included) who are drawn > to > > her work are probably at least partly drawn because of the same in > > themselves! Hah! Mea culpa... > > > > All good literary stories contain a hierarchy of values, i.e. the > > conclusion of the story will show us that X is better than Z; or it is > > better to be X than Z, etc... I think that the conclusion in a lot of her > > stories is that what is often taken for virtue today, is, in her view, in > > fact the vice of pride. Main example: That story where the do-gooding > > recreation director takes in the club-footed boy with the hope of, shall > we > > say, civilizing him or even...fixing him. Result of story: his own son > > dead. Moral of story: we have enough on our hands with fixing ourselves; > > but often pride causes us to try to fix others (to our, and sometimes > > others, demise). > > > > Which brings me to Elie's misinterpretation of "The Enduring Chill." He > > reads the moment where the son (a failed and self-pitying intellectual > home > > from his apartment in New York, sick with...something) offers a smoke to > > the two black farm hands as "trying to affirm equality with the black > > workers on his mother's farm." Let's think about the end of the story > for a > > minute: (IIRC) part of the reason he was sick was because he drank milk > > while he was in the factory, trying to gin up another [forced] 'moment of > > equality' with the farmhands. Drinking the milk was THE THING that his > > mother told him not to do (along with smoking in the factory)!!! (READ: > > Pride, disobedience; goes before the Fall). And exactly what the > farmhands > > say at the end: "That THE THING she don't like" (something like that). > > Therefore, we should read the act of offering a smoke in the factory as a > > prideful act of disobedience, rather than as a 'beautiful transcendent > > moment of equality.' ...and don't you see what is happening here? The boy > > is NOT to be lauded, even from a liberal perspective! This is because to > > him, the black men exist only to affirm something about himself!!! His > own > > tolerance, munificence, transcendence, wokeness... > > > > I could go on here, as I have found a few other things that struck me as > > false in Elie's essay. But it is getting rather long, and I prefer to > keep > > things brief. My closing comment is that the misreading of O'Connor in > fact > > reveals to us the very nature of the modern age as Flannery saw it: (I > > can't remember the exact word, but something like frightening, distorted, > > etc...). > > > > --Joe Francisco > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 10:44 PM janetcantor37--- via Percy-L < > > percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org> wrote: > > > >> I think this is very relevant to the Percy List and I found this > decision > >> distressing and disgusting. > >> How about others? > >> Janet Cantor > >> > >> On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 09:13:59 PM EDT, Beck, David A < > >> dabeck at iupui.edu> wrote: > >> > >> > >> While I know this is a Percy list, I wanted to send this article and see > >> what others thought. I was saddened by an article on Flannery O'Connor, > by > >> Paul Elie, a writer I used to respect and met at a Percy conference. I'm > >> wondering if this treatment will happen to Percy at some point. Sad. > >> > >> > >> > >> > https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/cancelling-flannery-oconnor?utm_content=buffere0f78&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer&fbclid=IwAR3JFBpjo4b7KsRAK8eaR2vg035SMSon5aqM1EYvXa4yyRh6sZN5T0Pu_7k > >> > >> > >> > >> David Beck > >> Senior Lecturer > >> English Department > >> Indiana University and Purdue University at Indianapolis > >> 425 University Boulevard, CA 343-E > >> Indianapolis, IN 46202 > >> 317-278-2550 > >> ------------------------------ > >> *From:* Percy-L on > >> behalf of RHONDA MCDONNELL > >> *Sent:* Sunday, August 2, 2020 3:49 PM > >> *To:* Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion > >> *Subject:* [External] Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 1 > >> > >> This message was sent from a non-IU address. Please exercise caution > when > >> clicking links or opening attachments from external sources. > >> > >> Gentlemen, > >> > >> I am enjoying eavesdropping on your discussion so much. While my brain > is > >> too tied up with other Percy matters at present to match the level of > >> discourse y?all have going, I am avidly following along and appreciating > >> Percy being discussed as the philosopher he was. > >> > >> Write on, > >> > >> Rhonda > >> > >> Sent from my iPad > >> > >> On Aug 2, 2020, at 3:03 PM, Michael Larson > wrote: > >> > >> ? > >> Tom, > >> > >> Thanks for the post. > >> > >> I think I am using the term "rhetoric" in a broader sense than you are. > >> That is to say, I am not using it as a synonym for "persuasion," though > >> persuasive effect would certainly be a component of rhetoric. Then > again, > >> so would critical thinking--as well as the use of logic and grammar, to > >> round out the classical trivium--and several other skills. The > rhetorical > >> act involves everything, from start to finish, that goes into the > eventual > >> communication of what one believes to be true. It is possible to be very > >> skilled in many or all of those components and still to misapprehend the > >> objective truth of the thing being examined. That was the point I was > >> making. It follows, then, from my use of "rhetoric" that "critical > >> thinking," especially in the way that you have defined it (i.e. as a > >> conscious attempt to discover truth, often in consultation with the > >> arguments of others) cannot be, or at least should not be, divorced from > >> the art of rhetoric. If it is divorced, it is more likely to be > sophistry > >> than rhetoric. > >> > >> My use of "elegance" and "cohesion" was merely the naming of two > specific > >> elements of rhetoric, not meant to be comprehensive but rather to > >> illustrate how portions of a skill set might be differentiated from the > >> objective truth toward which the skill set is being employed. > >> > >> The following statement of yours is interesting: > >> > >> "... regardless of how sure we may be that we've tp what's true, it > never > >> flips over into The Truth once and for all. Every conclusion, having > better > >> or worse reasons for believing it is true, is open to debate. This is, I > >> think, is the inescapable predicament of finite bodies that think in an > >> infinite universe." > >> > >> What you describe here is definitely accurate with regards to the > >> individual who is attempting to perceive a truth that cannot be proven > >> deductively. Lacking infinite knowledge, we must always make our > assertions > >> in the framework of what is more or less probable. Aristotle explains > this > >> well in his discussion of inductive reasoning in the service of > rhetoric. > >> However, from the side of whatever is actually true (about whatever is > >> under consideration), the once-and-for-all-ness is not subject to human > >> error or ignorance or blindness. In other words, the objective truth > >> doesn't need an escape clause, like we do, to change positions based on > new > >> information. > >> > >> Let's take the Catholic Church's claim to be the divinely appointed > >> authority (and consequent protection from error) in matters of faith and > >> morals. That claim is either objectively true, or it is not. Individuals > >> can examine the claim, as Percy did, and decide it is more or less > probable > >> and make their decisions accordingly, but the reality of the situation > just > >> is what it is, regardless of the finite mind's ability to assess the > odds. > >> > >> When you say this, "If that's Lance's confession, it sounds more like a > >> kind politician's unapologetic 'apology' to me. I really don't see how > it > >> could warrant any kind of absolution or release," I am in complete > >> agreement with you. And the rest of your analysis in that paragraph > seems > >> spot on to me as well. That's why I said, in the very beginning of this > >> discussion, that Lance is surely not about to be "absolved" by Percival > >> when the novel ends. Yes, of course, his "confession" has been > cathartic, > >> and he believes he has found the means of a restart, as you call it. But > >> that is not how Percival sees it. He has something more to tell Lance. > The > >> whole novel has been leading up to this moment where Lance feels finally > >> purged of his side of the story and is now ready to move on and live > (self) > >> righteously in defiance of a world gone mad. And now Percival is finally > >> ready and willing to speak. Brilliantly, his words will occur off > camera. > >> > >> In your final paragraph, you seem to be saying that Percy himself is, > >> through the novel, changing the notion of sacramental confession into > >> existential confession, as Lance perhaps does. But this is to ignore the > >> role of Percival, who, in the final pages of the novel, could not be > more > >> clearly distinguished from Lance. And your speculation that Percy is > >> rejecting "the illusions of an objective moral code or truth" seems > >> entirely unfounded, given that neither Lance nor Percival makes such a > >> rejection. In fact, they are united in their opposition to the modern > >> world, which has indeed abandoned the notion of objective truth. Their > >> solutions to that problem, however, are quite different. > >> > >> Best, > >> Mike > >> > >> On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 11:00 AM > >> wrote: > >> > >> Send Percy-L mailing list submissions to > >> percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > >> > >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > >> https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > >> percy-l-request at lists.ibiblio.org > >> > >> You can reach the person managing the list at > >> percy-l-owner at lists.ibiblio.org > >> > >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > >> than "Re: Contents of Percy-L digest..." > >> > >> > >> Today's Topics: > >> > >> 1. Re: Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 25 (Thomas Gollier) > >> > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> Message: 1 > >> Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 15:25:03 -0700 > >> From: Thomas Gollier > >> To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > >> > >> Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 25 > >> Message-ID: > >> >> hSdg at mail.gmail.com> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >> > >> Mike, > >> > >> Good to hear from you. > >> > >> You brought me up short with your reference to me teaching a "rhetorical > >> skill set," since I'm adamantly opposed to > >> mixing rhetoric, in the sense of persuading others, with critical > >> thinking. > >> However, the standard of "consistent and > >> complete" ? I not sure where "elegant and cohesive" came from ? is the > >> basis of persuading others, but critical > >> thinking, while it uses the same standard, is more concerned with > >> persuading oneself as to what one should believe > >> is true. Critical thinking, at its best, is a self-conscious > >> back-and-forth > >> collective effort toward discovering > >> truth. While "consistent" may be deductive, however, "completeness" is > >> inductive, so regardless of how sure we may be > >> that we've tp what's true, it never flips over into The Truth once and > for > >> all. Every conclusion, having better or > >> worse reasons for believing it is true, is open to debate. This is, I > >> think, is the inescapable predicament of > >> finite bodies that think in an infinite universe. > >> > >> What I found more interesting, though, and that you find, presumably on > >> the > >> basis of an objective moral code, both > >> "Lance *and* Margot to be untrustworthy in serious ways." If that's > >> Lance's > >> confession, it sounds more like a kind > >> politician's unapologetic "apology" to me. I really don't see how it > could > >> warrant any kind of absolution or > >> release. At first, their relationship was "transactional." He offered > the > >> Southern aristocracy; she offered Texas > >> money. And, they did seem to share the common objective of refurbishing > of > >> their house. But when the house was done, > >> he remarks, she seemed to be done too. If the relationship were purely > >> transactional, the transaction was completed, > >> and each could have simply moved on. But no, the confession consists in > >> the > >> explanation or recounting of how > >> something more had formed in their marriage, what I am calling a "moral > >> bond" between them, and that she, not Lance, > >> had betrayed it. He even seems to try to convince himself that the > sexual > >> infidelity should not be such a big > >> deal, but it is, and it irrevocably broke that bond between them with > such > >> finality that he must have video evidence > >> of the act itself. His "confession" is a matter of coming to understand > >> the > >> causes and consequences of what had > >> happened, the crimes he had committed, so as to find the absolution or > >> release that would allow a restart to his > >> life. Is that even possible after such crimes? > >> > >> Personally, what I really like about this novel is that it sharpens the > >> contrasts and contours of Percy's > >> existentialism, and in the process it, somewhat paradoxically, makes his > >> personal Catholicism more comprehensible to me. > >> He seems to take the "confession" ? the thing that apparently attracted > >> him > >> to Catholicism in the first place ? and > >> makes it into something different from the repentance and forgiveness > >> (that > >> is not forgiveness) it is within the > >> Church. I would argue more generally that he rejects the > >> depersonalizations > >> of abstract Gods and Churches, the > >> illusions of an objective moral code or truth. Perhaps that's a bit > >> speculative? But he does, I think, try to the > >> bring or give what truth those things can have for us to bear on our > >> actual > >> existence. > >> > >> Thanks > >> Tom > >> > >> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 1:35 PM Michael Larson > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Tom, > >> > > >> > You're not annoying me. I appreciate the dialogue. I'll try to > respond. > >> > > >> > I'll start with your question: " How does the notion of a 'hierarchy > of > >> > subjectivity' come from the possibility of infinite subjective > >> > interpretations and the fact some of those interpretations are better > >> than > >> > others?" > >> > > >> > It comes contained in the last part of your question itself: "... the > >> fact > >> > that some of those interpretations are better than others." If some > >> > interpretations are better than others, a hierarchy is by nature > already > >> > established and an objective standard is likewise already implied. > >> > > >> > When you speak of how you grade student writing, you are talking about > >> > evaluating their display of a rhetorical skill set, not about their > >> grasp > >> > of the truth. Those are two different things. Either one can be judged > >> > hierarchically. Elegance and cohesiveness of communication make a > scale > >> > that is independent of what is true. One person may offer an elegant > >> > defense and plenty of cohesive reasoning as to why the earth is flat. > >> > Another person might stumble through a weak defense of the spinning > >> globe. > >> > We might rank the former ahead of the latter in the skill set of > >> rhetoric, > >> > but we might rank the latter ahead of the former in his apprehension > of > >> the > >> > truth as to the physical nature of the earth. > >> > > >> > The same is true when we look at a piece of literature: one person > might > >> > write beautifully about something that goes quite astray of what the > >> story > >> > means while another person might struggle in attempting to articulate > >> what > >> > is essentially a deep understanding of that same story. Of course, we > >> are > >> > most pleased when the two skills--communication and apprehension--are > >> > joined in a single work. Take, for example, Tolkien's marvelous essay > (a > >> > lecture, actually), "The Monsters and the Critics." Prior to that > >> lecture, > >> > many well-known scholars had failed to grasp both the artistic genius > >> and > >> > the deep layers of meaning in *Beowulf*. In fact, they disdained many > of > >> > the very things that Tolkien was able to rescue--and not because his > >> > subjective interpretation was more popular. It wasn't. In fact, it > >> wasn't > >> > fully known until he put it into words, but when he did, many > objective > >> > truths about the poem were made manifest to anyone who cared to see > them > >> > and especially to those who had always had a sense for them but lacked > >> the > >> > articulation. In short, Tolkien's interpretation was better than that > of > >> > prior critics, and people knew it. They knew it because it is possible > >> for > >> > humans to recognize when something is objectively true, especially > when > >> it > >> > provides relief against that which has been less than fully true. > >> > > >> > What I am asserting here seems in direct opposition to what you say a > >> > little later in your post: "I propose to my students that the reason > for > >> > objectively seeking out different interpretations is not to pick the > >> right > >> > one." My first thought about this is that there might not be a "right > >> one." > >> > The presence of several interpretations is no guarantee that any of > them > >> > has a good grasp on what is being interpreted. Alternatively, they > might > >> > all be basically "right," more or less, though perhaps with differing > >> > levels of rhetorical effectiveness. In any case, I would always > >> encourage > >> > my students to compare and contrast, to evaluate arguments, to measure > >> what > >> > they read against reality, insofar as they have access to it. When the > >> > object is truth, then everyone--critics and readers--is essentially > >> working > >> > together toward the same goal, though some with more success than > >> others. > >> > > >> > But it sounds like, for you, the object is not so much truth as it is > to > >> > work out a kind of subjective *average *in one's own mind. You say, > >> "[The > >> > reason for seeking out different interpretations] is to get a > >> non-objective > >> > sense of the center and most comprehensive comprehension of all those > >> > various interpretations." There is nothing wrong, of course, with > >> > understanding a variety of interpretations, but if the end of that > >> > understanding is merely to find the center of that variety, then we > have > >> > diverted our gaze from the object under consideration and shifted it > to > >> the > >> > amalgamated opinion of the considerers. This is not exactly pure > >> > subjectivism, which would be interested only in one's own opinion, but > >> it > >> > is a kind of preoccupation with potential means rather than the use of > >> > those means toward their natural end: to arrive at truth regarding the > >> > object under consideration. > >> > > >> > In your paragraph about morality, I'm not sure I follow the shift from > >> > moral code to moral bond. To recognize a moral code, whether > subjective > >> or > >> > objective, is a different mental act than to trust a neighbor not to > >> harm > >> > you. The former is concerned with classification (i.e. this is good, > >> this > >> > is evil) while the latter is concerned with prudential judgment (I > >> predict > >> > that you will not burn my house down). So once again, both acts can be > >> > present: I can judge (whether accurately or not) that someone's > burning > >> > down my house would be an evil act even as I also judge (whether > >> accurately > >> > or not) that I do not think you will commit this act. Then if you do > >> > actually burn down my house, I will know that my trust was misplaced; > >> the > >> > house will go up in smoke, but the classification of arson as evil > will > >> be > >> > quite untouched by those flames. > >> > > >> > It's true that if this happened, I would no longer trust you not to > burn > >> > my house down. And yes, it's also possible, depending on how much I > >> trusted > >> > you to begin with, that I might start to doubt, in general, my > judgment > >> of > >> > who is trustworthy and who is not. But to lose trust in others or in > >> one's > >> > ability to assess the trustworthiness of others is not the same as > >> losing > >> > the sense that some things are moral and that other things are > immoral. > >> > > >> > I too find Lance and Margot to be untrustworthy in serious ways. The > >> acts > >> > that reveal their untrustworthiness are also acts I understand to be > >> > objectively immoral. I would argue further that to even speak of trust > >> and > >> > distrust once again implies an objective sense of morality in the one > >> who > >> > trusts or distrusts. What makes us trust someone are typically things > >> > understood to be morally good: honesty, forthrightness, patience, > >> > stability, etc.. What makes us distrust someone are typically things > >> > understood to be morally bad: lying, deception, short-temperedness, > >> > fickleness, etc.. We know these things. Deep down. > >> > > >> > Mike > >> > > >> > > >> -------------- next part -------------- > >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >> URL: < > >> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/attachments/20200801/b15d82af/attachment-0001.html > >> > > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> Subject: Digest Footer > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Percy-L mailing list > >> Percy-L at lists.ibiblio.org > >> https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> End of Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 1 > >> *************************************** > >> > >> > >> ---------------------------------- > >> * Percy-L Discussion Archives: > >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > >> > >> * Manage Your Membership: > >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > >> > >> * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > >> > >> * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > >> > >> > >> ---------------------------------- > >> * Percy-L Discussion Archives: > >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > >> > >> * Manage Your Membership: > >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > >> > >> * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > >> > >> * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > >> > >> ---------------------------------- > >> * Percy-L Discussion Archives: > >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > >> > >> * Manage Your Membership: > >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > >> > >> * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > >> > >> * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/attachments/20200805/fdc86a9a/attachment.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Percy-L mailing list > Percy-L at lists.ibiblio.org > https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 10 > **************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From charlescowherd at hotmail.com Wed Aug 5 20:02:51 2020 From: charlescowherd at hotmail.com (Charles Cowherd) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 00:02:51 +0000 Subject: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 11 Message-ID: Just to weigh in on the Flannery O'Connor/ Paul Elie scrum. At the seminary (Episcopal) that I attended, a professor had included the short story "The Artificial N____" in his compendium of short stories matched up to the preaching lectionary. (Flannery O'Connor fiction is VERY popular in Episcopal circles.) A draft copy somehow was made available to my fellow students, who opposed the inclusion. There was a big townhall meeting, a student petition, eventually the professor/author agreed to remove the story. This was about 3 years ago. I offer that up merely as another tiny data point in whatever this particular moment is all about. I know that Walker Percy spoke on that short story specifically but cannot find it, it's in CONVERSATIONS with WALKER PECY. I do think that it's a topic that we can discuss on this forum with care and concern and kindness for one another. Also, I have been reading THE NEW YORKER all my life ("a wonderful Yankee magazine"- my Dad always would say!). Only with this article the magazine it reveal how detached it is, as a source of journalism, from the world. It reminded me of Percy's dislike (too soft a word?) for Descartes. Instead, Percy believed we are all embodied creatures, fallen and stumbling in the world. Whereas the New Yorker writes an article with the title: "How Racist was Flannery O'Connor?" without any source of social location of time and place. All my best, Charles Cowherd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From janetcantor37 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 5 23:18:04 2020 From: janetcantor37 at yahoo.com (janetcantor37 at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 03:18:04 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1567868816.561948.1596683884799@mail.yahoo.com> Yeah and Kate Smith is verboten now too. I am getting sick of this.Janet Cantor On Wednesday, August 5, 2020, 08:17:53 PM EDT, Charles Cowherd wrote: Just to weigh in on the Flannery O?Connor/ Paul Elie scrum. At the seminary (Episcopal) that I attended, a professor had included the short story ?The Artificial N____? in his compendium of short stories matched up to the preaching lectionary. (Flannery O?Connor fiction is VERY popular in Episcopal circles.) A draft copy somehow was made available to my fellow students, who opposed the inclusion. There was a big townhall meeting, a student petition, eventually the professor/author agreed to remove the story. This was about 3 years ago. I offer that up merely as another tiny data point in whatever this particular moment is all about. I know that Walker Percy spoke on that short story specifically but cannot find it, it?s in CONVERSATIONS with WALKER PECY. I do think that it?s a topic that we can discuss on this forum with care and concern and kindness for one another. Also, I have been reading THE NEW YORKER all my life (?a wonderful Yankee magazine?- my Dad always would say!). Only with this article the magazine it reveal how detached it is, as a source of journalism, from the world. It reminded me of Percy?s dislike (too soft a word?) for Descartes. Instead, Percy believed we are all embodied creatures, fallen and stumbling in the world. Whereas the New Yorker writes an article with the title: ??How Racist was Flannery O?Connor?? without any source of social location of time and place. All my best, Charles Cowherd ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevinkeough710 at gmail.com Thu Aug 6 03:12:41 2020 From: kevinkeough710 at gmail.com (kevin keough) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 03:12:41 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: <1567868816.561948.1596683884799@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1567868816.561948.1596683884799@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Well, I'm all for people speaking their minds. That said, hurling an accusation that O'Connor is racist, is uninformed lunacy run amok. A group has a right and responsibility to maintain integrity, good relations with others, spreading gossip, or sharing some big agenda that has nothing to do with the group. I'm pretty quiet here but when it comes to Percy and O'Connor I think it's important to protect the group from trolls and contrarians. And it isn't evidence of racism if the accuser gets shown to the doot with a reasonable explanation. People, groups of all sorts are running into pretty effective trolls. Probably most of us are older---60 yo here-so we don't quite get when we are being punked or messed with. Everything returns to normal after the troll is sent on his way with the Grace of God. Next thing they'll pull no punches proving Percy was racist as they come. Why allow some crazy disruption caused by some lunatic contaminate the group? Protecting sacred spaces -very different from *same spaces* is essential. We have no right to be overcome by trolls, My two cents with hope for all good things to be coming your way. Kevin Kevin L. Keough Psy.D. 215 South Bancroft Parkway Wilmington, Delaware 19805 (C) 302.416.0342 (W) 302.803.6436 (E) kevinkeough710 at gmail.com Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 11:18 PM janetcantor37--- via Percy-L < percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org> wrote: > Yeah and Kate Smith is verboten now too. I am getting sick of this. > Janet Cantor > > On Wednesday, August 5, 2020, 08:17:53 PM EDT, Charles Cowherd < > charlescowherd at hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Just to weigh in on the Flannery O?Connor/ Paul Elie scrum. > At the seminary (Episcopal) that I attended, a professor had included the > short story ?The Artificial N____? in his compendium of short stories > matched up to the preaching lectionary. (Flannery O?Connor fiction is VERY > popular in Episcopal circles.) > A draft copy somehow was made available to my fellow students, who opposed > the inclusion. There was a big townhall meeting, a student petition, > eventually the professor/author agreed to remove the story. > This was about 3 years ago. > I offer that up merely as another tiny data point in whatever this > particular moment is all about. I know that Walker Percy spoke on that > short story specifically but cannot find it, it?s in CONVERSATIONS with > WALKER PECY. > I do think that it?s a topic that we can discuss on this forum with care > and concern and kindness for one another. > Also, I have been reading THE NEW YORKER all my life (?a wonderful Yankee > magazine?- my Dad always would say!). Only with this article the magazine > it reveal how detached it is, as a source of journalism, from the world. It > reminded me of Percy?s dislike (too soft a word?) for Descartes. Instead, > Percy believed we are all embodied creatures, fallen and stumbling in the > world. Whereas the New Yorker writes an article with the title: ?How > Racist was Flannery O?Connor?? without any source of social location of > time and place. > All my best, > Charles Cowherd > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gregory.plemmons at vumc.org Wed Aug 5 23:21:02 2020 From: gregory.plemmons at vumc.org (Plemmons, Gregory) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 03:21:02 +0000 Subject: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6AC81FFB-6BF1-4085-A039-1F4009A0AB66@vumc.org> Patrick Connelly, a Percy scholar, spoke on Percy and race at one of the former Walker Percy Weekends. He commonly referenced a quote from Percy (I wish I knew the original source) about the eternal ?problem of human frailty trapped in historical circumstance?. That quote has stuck with me. It has echoes of Pompeii, especially as we seem to be entering a whole new era of cancel culture. The extreme left?s iconoclasm frightens me almost as much as that of the Knotheads. I wish people could devote more energy inward toward themselves and the current state of things. While dissecting the past will always have some merit, what are we ourselves going to be judged on, fifty years from now? Even five years from this pandemic? Percy was imperfect as the best of us, but he and his family also slept in their attic for two weeks after a bomb threat from the local Klan in 1969, after defending the removal of the Confederate flag from the principal?s office of the local high school. Zadie Smith took a stab recently attempting to answer the question of the purpose of fiction. ?Does it seem at all surprising in 2019...that we should have this hypersensitivity?... Whereas many more material issues?economic inequality, criminal justice reform, immigration?prove frighteningly intractable, language becomes the convenient battlefield.? Apologies for the long-winded rant. I read the New Yorker article. It taught me nothing new. Flannery was trapped as anyone. Her poor physical health is often overlooked. Lupus is a horrible disease and there were little options for treatment or even simple relief in her time. Again, ?historical circumstance?. I like to think if her disease hadn?t claimed her at 39, her views might have evolved, too. I guess we?ll never know. Gregory Plemmons, MD On Aug 5, 2020, at 7:17 PM, Charles Cowherd wrote: ? Just to weigh in on the Flannery O?Connor/ Paul Elie scrum. At the seminary (Episcopal) that I attended, a professor had included the short story ?The Artificial N____? in his compendium of short stories matched up to the preaching lectionary. (Flannery O?Connor fiction is VERY popular in Episcopal circles.) A draft copy somehow was made available to my fellow students, who opposed the inclusion. There was a big townhall meeting, a student petition, eventually the professor/author agreed to remove the story. This was about 3 years ago. I offer that up merely as another tiny data point in whatever this particular moment is all about. I know that Walker Percy spoke on that short story specifically but cannot find it, it?s in CONVERSATIONS with WALKER PECY. I do think that it?s a topic that we can discuss on this forum with care and concern and kindness for one another. Also, I have been reading THE NEW YORKER all my life (?a wonderful Yankee magazine?- my Dad always would say!). Only with this article the magazine it reveal how detached it is, as a source of journalism, from the world. It reminded me of Percy?s dislike (too soft a word?) for Descartes. Instead, Percy believed we are all embodied creatures, fallen and stumbling in the world. Whereas the New Yorker writes an article with the title: ?How Racist was Flannery O?Connor?? without any source of social location of time and place. All my best, Charles Cowherd [ WARNING : This email came from an external source. Please treat this message with additional caution.] ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fpipermail%2Fpercy-l%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=XfC7cic65rm4ymcMNug%2B0i5pmKf%2BJaNoM7zlg%2FH9h%2FU%3D&reserved=0 * Manage Your Membership: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpercy-l&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=9Q3bnPoYfd2OBARKSecfmQiRP7qZKsewQN2GiBaj4t0%3D&reserved=0 * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibiblio.org%2Fwpercy&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=vrA7LTBbjJ5lMFvbs6qJWQEFInGNNbuAWzJRCZDE1HY%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ehutton at huttonassociates.com Thu Aug 6 10:42:56 2020 From: ehutton at huttonassociates.com (Ernest Hutton) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 10:42:56 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 11 Message-ID: ? ?Hazel Motes (in Flannery O?Connor?s Wise Blood), searches for God by railing against organized religion. But in doing so, he prophesizes the authoritarian end-state pushed by today?s cancel culture: ?Where you come from is gone, where you thought you were going to never was there, and where you are is no good unless you can get away from it.? O?Connor had it right, and is now a victim of her own perspicacity. This reign of terror is destroying us all! Ernie Hutton Sent from my iPhone Ernest W Hutton Jr. FAICP Assoc AIA Hutton Associates Inc. New York/ Westhampton 917.836.7902 17 Woodbridge Lane, Quiogue Westhampton Beach NY 11978 >> On Aug 6, 2020, at 4:55 AM, Plemmons, Gregory wrote: > ? > Patrick Connelly, a Percy scholar, spoke on Percy and race at one of the former Walker Percy Weekends. He commonly referenced a quote from Percy (I wish I knew the original source) about the eternal ?problem of human frailty trapped in historical circumstance?. That quote has stuck with me. It has echoes of Pompeii, especially as we seem to be entering a whole new era of cancel culture. The extreme left?s iconoclasm frightens me almost as much as that of the Knotheads. I wish people could devote more energy inward toward themselves and the current state of things. While dissecting the past will always have some merit, what are we ourselves going to be judged on, fifty years from now? Even five years from this pandemic? Percy was imperfect as the best of us, but he and his family also slept in their attic for two weeks after a bomb threat from the local Klan in 1969, after defending the removal of the Confederate flag from the principal?s office of the local high school. > > Zadie Smith took a stab recently attempting to answer the question of the purpose of fiction. ?Does it seem at all surprising in 2019...that we should have this hypersensitivity?... Whereas many more material issues?economic inequality, criminal justice reform, immigration?prove frighteningly intractable, language becomes the convenient battlefield.? > > Apologies for the long-winded rant. I read the New Yorker article. It taught me nothing new. Flannery was trapped as anyone. Her poor physical health is often overlooked. Lupus is a horrible disease and there were little options for treatment or even simple relief in her time. Again, ?historical circumstance?. I like to think if her disease hadn?t claimed her at 39, her views might have evolved, too. I guess we?ll never know. > > Gregory Plemmons, MD > >> On Aug 5, 2020, at 7:17 PM, Charles Cowherd wrote: >> ? >> Just to weigh in on the Flannery O?Connor/ Paul Elie scrum. >> At the seminary (Episcopal) that I attended, a professor had included the short story ?The Artificial N____? in his compendium of short stories matched up to the preaching lectionary. (Flannery O?Connor fiction is VERY popular in Episcopal circles.) >> A draft copy somehow was made available to my fellow students, who opposed the inclusion. There was a big townhall meeting, a student petition, eventually the professor/author agreed to remove the story. >> This was about 3 years ago. >> I offer that up merely as another tiny data point in whatever this particular moment is all about. I know that Walker Percy spoke on that short story specifically but cannot find it, it?s in CONVERSATIONS with WALKER PECY. >> I do think that it?s a topic that we can discuss on this forum with care and concern and kindness for one another. >> Also, I have been reading THE NEW YORKER all my life (?a wonderful Yankee magazine?- my Dad always would say!). Only with this article the magazine it reveal how detached it is, as a source of journalism, from the world. It reminded me of Percy?s dislike (too soft a word?) for Descartes. Instead, Percy believed we are all embodied creatures, fallen and stumbling in the world. Whereas the New Yorker writes an article with the title: ?How Racist was Flannery O?Connor?? without any source of social location of time and place. >> All my best, >> Charles Cowherd >> [ WARNING : This email came from an external source. Please treat this message with additional caution.] >> ---------------------------------- >> * Percy-L Discussion Archives: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fpipermail%2Fpercy-l%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=XfC7cic65rm4ymcMNug%2B0i5pmKf%2BJaNoM7zlg%2FH9h%2FU%3D&reserved=0 >> >> * Manage Your Membership: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpercy-l&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=9Q3bnPoYfd2OBARKSecfmQiRP7qZKsewQN2GiBaj4t0%3D&reserved=0 >> >> * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org >> >> * Visit The Walker Percy Project: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibiblio.org%2Fwpercy&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=vrA7LTBbjJ5lMFvbs6qJWQEFInGNNbuAWzJRCZDE1HY%3D&reserved=0 > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wriddick at usa.net Fri Aug 7 03:45:20 2020 From: wriddick at usa.net (Wade Riddick) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 03:45:20 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] Pluralism or community? Message-ID: <922yHgHSu9968Set.1596786320@web13.cms.usa.net> What many people fail to understand is that both the Knotheads and the NOT-heads (i.e., "cancel culture") spring from the same toxic stew of sins: pluralism. Pluralism is the belief that we have rights not as citizens of countries but through the groups we belong to - race, gender, etc. The pluralists think democracy is useless and unless we bind together into our "group" we can't be represented. Leaving the group for another or disagreeing with your assigned "interest" is the deepest betrayal and provokes a backlash imminently Freudian in its ferocity. I haven't seen anything like it since I argued with the Communist Party cult remnants in graduate school about the value of money. They don't accept that "interests" cut across these boundaries. They don't want to see, for instance, that women have an interest in men graduating from college so they can have marriageable mates. They're an extension of the Zuckerberg computerization of our lives that wants to chop us up into interests so they can monetize us when we connect that way. NOT-heads aren't "almost angry" at the Constitution; they're in outright contempt of it because the founders were explicitly against this form of thinking. In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison warns that giving organized groups of people the same rights as actual individual citizens will destroy real rights for those citizens and enable factionalism. This type of group behavior has to be controlled or it will destroy the community of democracy. The knotheads are simply a different side of that tribalism - the Confederacy tribe. This other great enemy of democracy has been engaged in its own long war against federalism going back to the days of the first Confederacy. The anger you see on the "right" is seething resentment from having civil rights legislation shoved down their throats. Since the '70s, the Republican Party has been fueled by vendetta Dixiecrats fishing for ways to make the Federal government fail - first with Nixon's failed budget impoundment, then with tax cuts they hoped would drive up the deficit so high one day they could use it as an excuse to gut spending. ("We're finally bankrupt. Yay!") But every escalating disaster caused by their sabotage of government action - 9/11, credit default swap implosions, Hurricane Katerina, S&L crises - only increased demand for government action - because, as you see today, there's no other central actor in America that can handle crises of this magnitude. These two sides resemble one another because racism - tribal revenge - is a communicable disease, quickly mutualizing contempt when unchecked. Social media has brought us into one another's lives like never before and many of us can't stand what we see. (Maybe better digital fences would make better digital neighbors.) Contempt breeds contempt and without tolerance for one another, democratic compromise is impossible and we can't govern ourselves - which suits the short-term interests of the oligarchs just fine. They need to dismantle property protections (i.e., the justice system), if they're going to steal from us. What does this have to do with anything? When you leave groups on their own to organize, those with the most money oraganize the best. Sick people are probably the most important group in the country because when you become sick, you lose your autonomy and become dependent upon others. Sick people also have the least influence on the political system because all our time and money is tied up in being sick. Ditto for groups like the poor and unemployed - because you need resources to organize yourselves. Some interests can't organize themselves like this. That's the function of government - to organize and address the concerns of all citizens. What the NOT-heads fail to acknowledge is that their attitudes towards politics benefit the very oligarchs paying for us to hate each other. The insidious idea underlying pluralism is that these groups somehow "compete" with one another for "influence" over the government. That is, they bribe officials. This is what I mean when I say a coup took place at the Supreme Court level in the 1970s when unelected judges equated bribery of politicians with "free speech." If you want to see what the Koch Brother's perfect market in politics looks like, go visit Mexico today where every official is available for a price (or soon shot). That's the future that awaits us. So these two groups, lacking any pragmatic influence on positive agendas, can't govern. They can only veto, fume and fulminate. That's where we find ourselves. They both promise heaven on earth but can't even stop graffiti, much less a pandemic. Reality collides with these delusions and knocks followers into the same fatalistic flights of fancy that all failed charismatic cults descend into. Donald Trump becomes the Stokely Carmichael of white power and the Abbie Hoffman of the pandemic - gonna levitate that 'ronavirus with the good feelings of his mind ray. It's clear how the Confederacy keeps winding up in the same spot. It's more interesting how the Left fell into this heresy. Basically, in the '60s and '70s, Nixon destroyed the Left with targeted assassinations of Black Panther leadership, the War on Drugs, Cointelpro and other programs. The apparatus developed against democracy in Vietnam and Indonesia was reimported to "deradicalize" urban resistance to the new oil imperialist/banking oligarchy that you now see coming apart. This is why, today, we have such high incarceration rates: Jim Crow Part II. With both parties now locked down by bribery, unions getting dismantled and wages driven down, there was no room anymore for the Left outside academia and to succeed on the Left there, you had to abandon claims on material wealth and economic justice or you'd be dealt with too. Courses on Locke, Rousseau and Madison were shunted aside and restricted to graduate school - if available at all - so no uppity undergrads would ever have the gall to attack undemocratic militarism with democratic theory ever again. That forced the Left into a peculiarly sterile conversation about race and sex - not the underlying sources of injustice there that could never be questioned but rather on personal experience - to a fatalistically myopic degree. The end result of this is something called, bizarrely, Boasian antiracism . A similar defenestration of Christianity occurred on the right. It's considered "heresy" now to discuss the fact that Jesus wanted debt cancellation - when in fact the heresy is failing to point out that he did and that led to the crucifixion. Blame it all on the "Me Decade" of the '70s. Both the right and the left turned toward the personal, especially personal narrative and confessional - and new forms of communication gave them this power. Both sides fell prey to exaggerated doctrines of Deconstruction, elevating personal revelation above law, constitution and Gospel truth enabling the "will-to-power" movements common in fascism. Out went universal meaning and in swept wishy-washy relativism with "safe spaces" where nobody has to be overruled. Charismatic evangelicals (read: segregationists) substituted personal confession for Biblical truth. Witness George Zimmerman claiming it was part of God's plan he shoot an unarmed black boy walking home at night. The Right ate it up forgetting that 1) No greater love has a man than he gives up his life to save another (*not* takes another). 2) Do not be overcome by evil but rather overcome evil with good. 3) There is no fear in love. Love casts out fear. Zimmerman got out of the car that night armed with a gun because he was afraid he might die and unafraid to kill - pretty much the opposite of a Christian. But the anti-Christian charismatics ate it up in their culture war because he hated the right people. Of course, on the Left, these ironic contradictions abound too. When I heard Bruce Jenner confessing happiness at no longer having to lie to everybody, my first thought was, "He's admitting to cheating with steroids like I'm positive almost everybody in track and field at the Olympic level has been doing since the '50s?" No. My second thought was, "He's apologizing for giving people cancer and diabetes by selling us Wheaties?" Nope again. He's transgendered. Oh. How was that ever my business? What about all the people harmed by the cheating? Oh, well? In the future, we did get our fifteen minutes of fame and now we're all trapped in our own personality cults. We're one big self-published, unedited echo chamber of one. Ours is an era of personal narrative devoid of genuine readers. Reading takes kindness. Reading takes reflection and reflection is the enemy of sensationalist tweets. (Got to move those ads.) Bridging these islands of self presupposes an objective reality that can sustain us while we're "at sea" off your own island. I think Percy referred to this as the "intersubjective." But politically speaking, no man is an island. We can't be our own subjects of one, which was Madison's point. Substituting mob gangs does not give you a better form of government. We all fall prey to different heresies of perfection. Tech bros seem to think the world will become a perfect place with enough microchips thrown at it. (I've debugged too much code to believe that one.) The flip side of that is nasty too. Nostalgia is the enemy of forgiveness, which was a major theme of Percy's. Nostalgia imagines a perfect past. If the past was once perfect - or at least better - then the screwed up way things are today is unnecessary and we need no forgiveness. We just need to travel back in our memory to get there. But there's no one left showing us how fallible that memory is. Those critics disappeared in our flattened new perspective on life. We shouldn't idealize the past or despise it. Nor should we idealize the future. We should be, in our dire time of need, raging Pragmatists and radicalized moderates. Wade Riddick ------ Original Message ------ Received: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 10:43:12 AM EDT From: Ernest Hutton To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 11 ? ?Hazel Motes (in Flannery O?Connor?s Wise Blood), searches for God by railing against organized religion. But in doing so, he prophesizes the authoritarian end-state pushed by today?s cancel culture: ?Where you come from is gone, where you thought you were going to never was there, and where you are is no good unless you can get away from it.? O?Connor had it right, and is now a victim of her own perspicacity. This reign of terror is destroying us all! Ernie Hutton Sent from my iPhone Ernest W Hutton Jr. FAICP Assoc AIA Hutton Associates Inc. New York/ Westhampton 917.836.7902 17 Woodbridge Lane, Quiogue Westhampton Beach NY 11978 >> On Aug 6, 2020, at 4:55 AM, Plemmons, Gregory wrote: > ? > Patrick Connelly, a Percy scholar, spoke on Percy and race at one of the former Walker Percy Weekends. He commonly referenced a quote from Percy (I wish I knew the original source) about the eternal ?problem of human frailty trapped in historical circumstance?. That quote has stuck with me. It has echoes of Pompeii, especially as we seem to be entering a whole new era of cancel culture. The extreme left?s iconoclasm frightens me almost as much as that of the Knotheads. I wish people could devote more energy inward toward themselves and the current state of things. While dissecting the past will always have some merit, what are we ourselves going to be judged on, fifty years from now? Even five years from this pandemic? Percy was imperfect as the best of us, but he and his family also slept in their attic for two weeks after a bomb threat from the local Klan in 1969, after defending the removal of the Confederate flag from the principal?s office of the local high school. > > Zadie Smith took a stab recently attempting to answer the question of the purpose of fiction. ?Does it seem at all surprising in 2019...that we should have this hypersensitivity?... Whereas many more material issues?economic inequality, criminal justice reform, immigration?prove frighteningly intractable, language becomes the convenient battlefield.? > > Apologies for the long-winded rant. I read the New Yorker article. It taught me nothing new. Flannery was trapped as anyone. Her poor physical health is often overlooked. Lupus is a horrible disease and there were little options for treatment or even simple relief in her time. Again, ?historical circumstance?. I like to think if her disease hadn?t claimed her at 39, her views might have evolved, too. I guess we?ll never know. > > Gregory Plemmons, MD > >> On Aug 5, 2020, at 7:17 PM, Charles Cowherd wrote: >> ? >> Just to weigh in on the Flannery O?Connor/ Paul Elie scrum. >> At the seminary (Episcopal) that I attended, a professor had included the short story ?The Artificial N____? in his compendium of short stories matched up to the preaching lectionary. (Flannery O?Connor fiction is VERY popular in Episcopal circles.) >> A draft copy somehow was made available to my fellow students, who opposed the inclusion. There was a big townhall meeting, a student petition, eventually the professor/author agreed to remove the story. >> This was about 3 years ago. >> I offer that up merely as another tiny data point in whatever this particular moment is all about. I know that Walker Percy spoke on that short story specifically but cannot find it, it?s in CONVERSATIONS with WALKER PECY. >> I do think that it?s a topic that we can discuss on this forum with care and concern and kindness for one another. >> Also, I have been reading THE NEW YORKER all my life (?a wonderful Yankee magazine?- my Dad always would say!). Only with this article the magazine it reveal how detached it is, as a source of journalism, from the world. It reminded me of Percy?s dislike (too soft a word?) for Descartes. Instead, Percy believed we are all embodied creatures, fallen and stumbling in the world. Whereas the New Yorker writes an article with the title: ?How Racist was Flannery O?Connor?? without any source of social location of time and place. >> All my best, >> Charles Cowherd >> [ WARNING : This email came from an external source. Please treat this message with additional caution.] >> ---------------------------------- >> * Percy-L Discussion Archives: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fpipermail%2Fpercy-l%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=XfC7cic65rm4ymcMNug%2B0i5pmKf%2BJaNoM7zlg%2FH9h%2FU%3D&reserved=0 >> >> * Manage Your Membership: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpercy-l&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=9Q3bnPoYfd2OBARKSecfmQiRP7qZKsewQN2GiBaj4t0%3D&reserved=0 >> >> * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org >> >> * Visit The Walker Percy Project: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibiblio.org%2Fwpercy&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=vrA7LTBbjJ5lMFvbs6qJWQEFInGNNbuAWzJRCZDE1HY%3D&reserved=0 > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From janetcantor37 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 7 06:36:33 2020 From: janetcantor37 at yahoo.com (janetcantor37 at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 10:36:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [percy-l] Pluralism or community? A response to Wade Riddick. In-Reply-To: <922yHgHSu9968Set.1596786320@web13.cms.usa.net> References: <922yHgHSu9968Set.1596786320@web13.cms.usa.net> Message-ID: <1641287727.1090464.1596796593547@mail.yahoo.com> You opened so well. Federalist #10 is my favorite of the Federalist Papers.Then you fell into conclusions that do not match mine. I agree that pluralism as you describe it - belief in the ascendancy of our attachment to factions instead of love of the whole, patriotism, love of country - is not good. The trouble is when I look up the definition of pluralism, it is the opposite of how you describe it. So I am going to tell you how I read #10: Our country needed a strong central symbol, the flag, a president, so that our individual interests (factions) could never get big enough to disrupt or bring down the whole. If we wanted to be a "country", able to defend itself against outside mischief from other countries, we had to be unified. Pluralism entailed allowing individuals as well as states and individual interests to be protected from meddling or destruction, as long as those individuals did not break the country's laws.? The colonies were worried that they had just left the King and wanted no parts of a president. So #10 tried to explain all about the protections we would put in place so individual interests and minorities would not fall prey ?to a new kind of tyranny. They would put in place protections of each state by having representations in a Senate where every colony - eventually state - would get the same representation no matter how small it was compared to the others. They would put in place a Court to interpret the law. And the constant tension among all of these entities would prevent a president from having too much power and individuals or groups with they interest from inciting confusions to bring down the whole, the U.S.The central power in the hands of a president having to contend with these safeguards against its controlling all the power would help keep all individual Americans safe.The larger the country, the more diverse the separate states, the more difficult it would be for a dictatorship to arise.The colonies became convinced and stopped fearing having a president. ?Again, you were doing so well, It is true that leftists of recent history love chopping us up into groups with grievances so they can better control us. Where you went astray is when you began describing the "seething resentment " of the right and its origins. There is no resentment in Republicans and other rightists here from having Civil Rights legislation shoved down "their throats".It was the Republicans throughout our history who instigated and helped bring about the end of slavery against the Democrats. It was the right which fought for integration.?The KKK, those who fought to preserve slavery and prevent integration of schools were always in the Democrat Party.?LBJ got lots of attention when he passed the Civil Rights act, but without the votes of Republicans in Congress, it would never have come to fruition. Tax cuts were never designed to drive up the deficit, but to spur growth of the economy which would bring more money into government, not less. When JFK passed his tax cuts, the economy got a big push and the government made more money. Yes, both sides promise heaven on earth. But if you look at the history from 1976 until today it is a series of democrats pulling the country away from capitalism and Republicans correcting their mistakes and fixing the country and then the sliding again when democrats win again.?Taking power away from the central government to give us goodies or manage things is a good thing.??Reagan fixed Carter's disastrous economy.?Under Clinton we were headed back to catastrophe again until the 1994 Republican congress came in and fixed everything again, and then Clinton took credit for it, and that's okay, because at least he didn't get in the way. And I don't want to ruffle feathers, but recently the pattern began again.?And until the plague hit us, we were coasting along in the best economy ever. Too much federal spending is terrible, I agree and both sides are guilty of that. Dismantling private property protection is lethally bad. We agree there. Oligarchs stealing from private citizens is a disease, yes. Taking power from individuals is dangerous. But we get more of these bad things every time we elect Democrats and this time the contrast couldn't be starker. I don't know about the Koch Brothers, but George Soros and the teachers unions have them beat when it comes to stealing power from individuals and placing it in the hands of government operators. Wages were going up, unemployment was virtually disappearing, and minorities of all kinds benefitted from these things the most. And then the pandemic struck and we were told were have to close down the economy.?If this hadn't happened, we would have been in excellent economic shape. The chaos of now is a left wing phenomenon. These destructive mobs are avowed Marxists by their own definition. the graffiti and bringing down of statues and buildings and chaos and murder is all a left wing phenomenon these days - and BTW, occurring in cities run by progressive democrats. As for the left abandoning claims on material wealth and economic justice, where do you see that? It is in the Democrat party where you find the most rich who came into government with modest savings and left multi millionaires. Hillsdale College, which I would describe as closer to conservatism than liberalism as defined these days, does not deconstruct, does not elevate personal revelation above law or enable will to power movement. Hillsdale encourages individual responsibility.?Lovers of safe spaces where nobody has to be overruled is a leftist phenomenon. Where are you finding in your George Zimmerman narrative that those three points you name are being forgotten by the Right? I call myself a rightist and those points seem just fine to me. Look how easy it is for two sides to see the same facts and come to completely different readings of what is going on. Of course, the big question is what would Percy make of it all these days?I am guessing he would hate what anarchist Marxists are doing to our cities, and attempting to do to our history, and our culture. We all should. I know that Percy would despair that things are not better. And I suspect he might find it very difficult to write those crazy fun house novels of his with their gorgeous endings. I suggest that each of us should settle down and set aside time to read the beautiful book by Wilfred McClay, Land of Hope. It clears up a lot of the confusion between Wade Riddick and me. And, borrowing from Ariel in The Tempest, it is so inspiring, it will make any reader cry if he is human. Janet Cantor On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:47 AM, Wade Riddick wrote: What many people fail to understand is that both the Knotheads and the NOT-heads (i.e., "cancel culture") spring from the same toxic stew of sins: pluralism. Pluralism is the belief that we have rights not as citizens of countries but through the groups we belong to - race, gender, etc.? The pluralists think democracy is useless and unless we bind together into our "group" we can't be represented.? Leaving the group for another or disagreeing with your assigned "interest" is the deepest betrayal and provokes a backlash imminently Freudian in its ferocity.? I haven't seen anything like it since I argued with the Communist Party cult remnants in graduate school about the value of money. They don't accept that "interests" cut across these boundaries.? They don't want to see, for instance, that women have an interest in men graduating from college so they can have marriageable mates.? They're an extension of the Zuckerberg computerization of our lives that wants to chop us up into interests so they can monetize us when we connect that way. NOT-heads aren't "almost angry" at the Constitution; they're in outright contempt of it because the founders were explicitly against this form of thinking.? In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison warns that giving organized groups of people the same rights as actual individual citizens will destroy real rights for those citizens and enable factionalism.? This type of group behavior has to be controlled or it will destroy the community of democracy. The knotheads are simply a different side of that tribalism - the Confederacy tribe.? This other great enemy of democracy has been engaged in its own long war against federalism going back to the days of the first Confederacy.? The anger you see on the "right" is seething resentment from having civil rights legislation shoved down their throats.? Since the '70s, the Republican Party has been fueled by vendetta Dixiecrats fishing for ways to make the Federal government fail - first with Nixon's failed budget impoundment, then with tax cuts they hoped would drive up the deficit so high one day they could use it as an excuse to gut spending.? ("We're finally bankrupt.? Yay!")? But every escalating disaster caused by their sabotage of government action - 9/11, credit default swap implosions, Hurricane Katerina, S&L crises - only increased demand for government action - because, as you see today, there's no other central actor in America that can handle crises of this magnitude. These two sides resemble one another because racism - tribal revenge - is a communicable disease, quickly mutualizing contempt when unchecked.? Social media has brought us into one another's lives like never before and many of us can't stand what we see. (Maybe better digital fences would make better digital neighbors.)? Contempt breeds contempt and without tolerance for one another, democratic compromise is impossible and we can't govern ourselves - which suits the short-term interests of the oligarchs just fine.? They need to dismantle property protections (i.e., the justice system), if they're going to steal from us. What does this have to do with anything? When you leave groups on their own to organize, those with the most money oraganize the best.? Sick people are probably the most important group in the country because when you become sick, you lose your autonomy and become dependent upon others.? Sick people also have the least influence on the political system because all our time and money is tied up in being sick. Ditto for groups like the poor and unemployed - because you need resources to organize yourselves.? Some interests can't organize themselves like this. That's the function of government - to organize and address the concerns of all citizens. What the NOT-heads fail to acknowledge is that their attitudes towards politics benefit the very oligarchs paying for us to hate each other.? The insidious idea underlying pluralism is that these groups somehow "compete" with one another for "influence" over the government.? That is, they bribe officials.? This is what I mean when I say a coup took place at the Supreme Court level in the 1970s when unelected judges equated bribery of politicians with "free speech."? If you want to see what the Koch Brother's perfect market in politics looks like, go visit Mexico today where every official is available for a price (or soon shot).? That's the future that awaits us. So these two groups, lacking any pragmatic influence on positive agendas, can't govern.? They can only veto, fume and fulminate.? That's where we find ourselves.? They both promise heaven on earth but can't even stop graffiti, much less a pandemic.? Reality collides with these delusions and knocks followers into the same fatalistic flights of fancy that all failed charismatic cults descend into.? Donald Trump becomes the Stokely Carmichael of white power and the Abbie Hoffman of the pandemic - gonna levitate that 'ronavirus with the good feelings of his mind ray. It's clear how the Confederacy keeps winding up in the same spot.? It's more interesting how the Left fell into this heresy.? Basically, in the '60s and '70s, Nixon destroyed the Left with targeted assassinations of Black Panther leadership, the War on Drugs, Cointelpro and other programs.? The apparatus developed against democracy in Vietnam and Indonesia was reimported to "deradicalize" urban resistance to the new oil imperialist/banking oligarchy that you now see coming apart.? This is why, today, we have such high incarceration rates: Jim Crow Part II. With both parties now locked down by bribery, unions getting dismantled and wages driven down, there was no room anymore for the Left outside academia and to succeed on the Left there, you had to abandon claims on material wealth and economic justice or you'd be dealt with too.? Courses on Locke, Rousseau and Madison were shunted aside and restricted to graduate school - if available at all - so no uppity undergrads would ever have the gall to attack undemocratic militarism with democratic theory ever again.? That forced the Left into a peculiarly sterile conversation about race and sex - not the underlying sources of injustice there that could never be questioned but rather on personal experience - to a fatalistically myopic degree.? The end result of this is something called, bizarrely, Boasian antiracism . A similar defenestration of Christianity occurred on the right.? It's considered "heresy" now to discuss the fact that Jesus wanted debt cancellation - when in fact the heresy is failing to point out that he did and that led to the crucifixion. Blame it all on the "Me Decade" of the '70s.? Both the right and the left turned toward the personal, especially personal narrative and confessional - and new forms of communication gave them this power.? Both sides fell prey to exaggerated doctrines of Deconstruction, elevating personal revelation above law, constitution and Gospel truth enabling the "will-to-power" movements common in fascism.? Out went universal meaning and in swept wishy-washy relativism with "safe spaces" where nobody has to be overruled. Charismatic evangelicals (read: segregationists) substituted personal confession for Biblical truth.? Witness George Zimmerman claiming it was part of God's plan he shoot an unarmed black boy walking home at night.? The Right ate it up forgetting that 1)? No greater love has a man than he gives up his life to save another (*not* takes another). 2)? Do not be overcome by evil but rather overcome evil with good. 3)? There is no fear in love.? Love casts out fear. Zimmerman got out of the car that night armed with a gun because he was afraid he might die and unafraid to kill - pretty much the opposite of a Christian. But the anti-Christian charismatics ate it up in their culture war because he hated the right people. Of course, on the Left, these ironic contradictions abound too. When I heard Bruce Jenner confessing happiness at no longer having to lie to everybody, my first thought was, "He's admitting to cheating with steroids like I'm positive almost everybody in track and field at the Olympic level has been doing since the '50s?" No. My second thought was, "He's apologizing for giving people cancer and diabetes by selling us Wheaties?" Nope again. He's transgendered. Oh. How was that ever my business? What about all the people harmed by the cheating? Oh, well? In the future, we did get our fifteen minutes of fame and now we're all trapped in our own personality cults.? We're one big self-published, unedited echo chamber of one.? Ours is an era of personal narrative devoid of genuine readers.? Reading takes kindness.? Reading takes reflection and reflection is the enemy of sensationalist tweets.? (Got to move those ads.)? Bridging these islands of self presupposes an objective reality that can sustain us while we're "at sea" off your own island.? I think Percy referred to this as the "intersubjective." But politically speaking, no man is an island.? We can't be our own subjects of one, which was Madison's point.? Substituting mob gangs does not give you a better form of government. We all fall prey to different heresies of perfection.? Tech bros seem to think the world will become a perfect place with enough microchips thrown at it. (I've debugged too much code to believe that one.)? The flip side of that is nasty too.? Nostalgia is the enemy of forgiveness, which was a major theme of Percy's.? Nostalgia imagines a perfect past.? If the past was once perfect - or at least better - then the screwed up way things are today is unnecessary and we need no forgiveness.? We just need to travel back in our memory to get there. But there's no one left showing us how fallible that memory is.? Those critics disappeared in our flattened new perspective on life. We shouldn't idealize the past or despise it.? Nor should we idealize the future.? We should be, in our dire time of need, raging Pragmatists and radicalized moderates. Wade Riddick ------ Original Message ------ Received: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 10:43:12 AM EDT From: Ernest Hutton To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 11 ? ?Hazel Motes (in Flannery O?Connor?s Wise Blood), searches for God by railing against organized religion. But in doing so, he prophesizes the authoritarian end-state pushed by today?s cancel culture:? ?Where you come from is gone, where you thought you were going to never was there, and where you are is no good unless you can get away from it.? O?Connor had it right, and is now a victim of her own perspicacity. This reign of terror is destroying us all! Ernie Hutton Sent from my iPhone Ernest W Hutton Jr. FAICP Assoc AIA Hutton Associates Inc. New York/ Westhampton 917.836.7902 17 Woodbridge Lane, Quiogue Westhampton Beach NY 11978 >> On Aug 6, 2020, at 4:55 AM, Plemmons, Gregory wrote: > ? > Patrick Connelly, a Percy scholar, spoke on Percy and race at one of the former Walker Percy Weekends. He commonly referenced a quote from Percy (I wish I knew the original source) about the eternal ?problem of human frailty trapped in historical circumstance?. That quote has stuck with me. It has echoes of Pompeii, especially as we seem to be entering a whole new era of cancel culture. The extreme left?s iconoclasm frightens me almost as much as that of the Knotheads. I wish people could devote more energy inward toward themselves and the current state of things. While dissecting the past will always have some merit, what are we ourselves going to be judged on, fifty years from now? Even five years from this pandemic? Percy was imperfect as the best of us, but he and his family also slept in their attic for two weeks after a bomb threat from the local Klan in 1969, after defending the removal of the Confederate flag from the principal?s office of the local high school. > > Zadie Smith took a stab recently attempting to answer the question of the purpose of fiction. ?Does it seem at all surprising in 2019...that we should have this hypersensitivity?... Whereas many more material issues?economic inequality, criminal justice reform, immigration?prove frighteningly intractable, language becomes the convenient battlefield.? > > Apologies for the long-winded rant. I read the New Yorker article. It taught me nothing new. Flannery was trapped as anyone. Her poor physical health is often overlooked. Lupus is a horrible disease and there were little options for treatment or even simple relief in her time. Again, ?historical circumstance?. I like to think if her disease hadn?t claimed her at 39, her views might have evolved, too. I guess we?ll never know. > > Gregory Plemmons, MD > >> On Aug 5, 2020, at 7:17 PM, Charles Cowherd wrote: >> ? >> Just to weigh in on the Flannery O?Connor/ Paul Elie scrum. >> At the seminary (Episcopal) that I attended, a professor had included the short story ?The Artificial N____? in his compendium of short stories matched up to the preaching lectionary. (Flannery O?Connor fiction is VERY popular in Episcopal circles.) >> A draft copy somehow was made available to my fellow students, who opposed the inclusion. There was a big townhall meeting, a student petition, eventually the professor/author agreed to remove the story. >> This was about 3 years ago. >> I offer that up merely as another tiny data point in whatever this particular moment is all about. I know that Walker Percy spoke on that short story specifically but cannot find it, it?s in CONVERSATIONS with WALKER PECY. >> I do think that it?s a topic that we can discuss on this forum with care and concern and kindness for one another. >> Also, I have been reading THE NEW YORKER all my life (?a wonderful Yankee magazine?- my Dad always would say!). Only with this article the magazine it reveal how detached it is, as a source of journalism, from the world. It reminded me of Percy?s dislike (too soft a word?) for Descartes. Instead, Percy believed we are all embodied creatures, fallen and stumbling in the world. Whereas the New Yorker writes an article with the title:? ?How Racist was Flannery O?Connor?? without any source of social location of time and place. >> All my best, >> Charles Cowherd >> [ WARNING : This email came from an external source. Please treat this message with additional caution.] >> ---------------------------------- >> * Percy-L Discussion Archives: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fpipermail%2Fpercy-l%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=XfC7cic65rm4ymcMNug%2B0i5pmKf%2BJaNoM7zlg%2FH9h%2FU%3D&reserved=0 >> >> * Manage Your Membership: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpercy-l&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=9Q3bnPoYfd2OBARKSecfmQiRP7qZKsewQN2GiBaj4t0%3D&reserved=0 >> >> * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org >> >> * Visit The Walker Percy Project: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibiblio.org%2Fwpercy&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=vrA7LTBbjJ5lMFvbs6qJWQEFInGNNbuAWzJRCZDE1HY%3D&reserved=0 > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lauren.stacy.berdy at gmail.com Fri Aug 7 11:55:41 2020 From: lauren.stacy.berdy at gmail.com (Lauren Berdy) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:55:41 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] Pluralism or community? A response to Wade Riddick. In-Reply-To: <1641287727.1090464.1596796593547@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1641287727.1090464.1596796593547@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dr Percy wrote of our life motions while alive upon this Revolving axis. Any writer However wild grotesque Or heavy handed who makes our Daily sunset more of a surprise to us And our lunar crescent more a miracle ant writer who rouses our Sense of the vast tragedy of generations any writer who Makes us feel the earth Devine Presence and the night to almost Be a palpable god wins our Whole hearted respect. What Dr Percy asked of his readers Is to see the great throb of all Life?s engines down here. Each of us convoluted dark mysteries moving along roads In the outskirts. Perhaps Catholicism Provided a path? Life is short arguments are silly. Opinions are cul de sacs. Dr Percy was flesh and blood And chance gave him a vibrant Sensitivity. fresh thrilling and Original. Thank you Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 7, 2020, at 6:36 AM, janetcantor37--- via Percy-L wrote: > > ? > You opened so well. Federalist #10 is my favorite of the Federalist Papers. > Then you fell into conclusions that do not match mine. > > I agree that pluralism as you describe it - belief in the ascendancy of our attachment to factions instead of love of the whole, patriotism, love of country - is not good. > > The trouble is when I look up the definition of pluralism, it is the opposite of how you describe it. > > So I am going to tell you how I read #10: > > Our country needed a strong central symbol, the flag, a president, so that our individual interests (factions) could never get big enough to disrupt or bring down the whole. If we wanted to be a "country", able to defend itself against outside mischief from other countries, we had to be unified. Pluralism entailed allowing individuals as well as states and individual interests to be protected from meddling or destruction, as long as those individuals did not break the country's laws. > > The colonies were worried that they had just left the King and wanted no parts of a president. So #10 tried to explain all about the protections we would put in place so individual interests and minorities would not fall prey to a new kind of tyranny. They would put in place protections of each state by having representations in a Senate where every colony - eventually state - would get the same representation no matter how small it was compared to the others. They would put in place a Court to interpret the law. And the constant tension among all of these entities would prevent a president from having too much power and individuals or groups with they interest from inciting confusions to bring down the whole, the U.S. > The central power in the hands of a president having to contend with these safeguards against its controlling all the power would help keep all individual Americans safe. > The larger the country, the more diverse the separate states, the more difficult it would be for a dictatorship to arise. > The colonies became convinced and stopped fearing having a president. > > > Again, you were doing so well, It is true that leftists of recent history love chopping us up into groups with grievances so they can better control us. > > Where you went astray is when you began describing the "seething resentment " of the right and its origins. > > There is no resentment in Republicans and other rightists here from having Civil Rights legislation shoved down "their throats". > It was the Republicans throughout our history who instigated and helped bring about the end of slavery against the Democrats. It was the right which fought for integration. > The KKK, those who fought to preserve slavery and prevent integration of schools were always in the Democrat Party. > LBJ got lots of attention when he passed the Civil Rights act, but without the votes of Republicans in Congress, it would never have come to fruition. > > Tax cuts were never designed to drive up the deficit, but to spur growth of the economy which would bring more money into government, not less. When JFK passed his tax cuts, the economy got a big push and the government made more money. > > Yes, both sides promise heaven on earth. But if you look at the history from 1976 until today it is a series of democrats pulling the country away from capitalism and Republicans correcting their mistakes and fixing the country and then the sliding again when democrats win again. > Taking power away from the central government to give us goodies or manage things is a good thing. > Reagan fixed Carter's disastrous economy. > Under Clinton we were headed back to catastrophe again until the 1994 Republican congress came in and fixed everything again, and then Clinton took credit for it, and that's okay, because at least he didn't get in the way. And I don't want to ruffle feathers, but recently the pattern began again. > And until the plague hit us, we were coasting along in the best economy ever. > > Too much federal spending is terrible, I agree and both sides are guilty of that. Dismantling private property protection is lethally bad. We agree there. Oligarchs stealing from private citizens is a disease, yes. Taking power from individuals is dangerous. But we get more of these bad things every time we elect Democrats and this time the contrast couldn't be starker. > > I don't know about the Koch Brothers, but George Soros and the teachers unions have them beat when it comes to stealing power from individuals and placing it in the hands of government operators. > > Wages were going up, unemployment was virtually disappearing, and minorities of all kinds benefitted from these things the most. And then the pandemic struck and we were told were have to close down the economy. > If this hadn't happened, we would have been in excellent economic shape. > > The chaos of now is a left wing phenomenon. These destructive mobs are avowed Marxists by their own definition. the graffiti and bringing down of statues and buildings and chaos and murder is all a left wing phenomenon these days - and BTW, occurring in cities run by progressive democrats. > > As for the left abandoning claims on material wealth and economic justice, where do you see that? It is in the Democrat party where you find the most rich who came into government with modest savings and left multi millionaires. > > Hillsdale College, which I would describe as closer to conservatism than liberalism as defined these days, does not deconstruct, does not elevate personal revelation above law or enable will to power movement. Hillsdale encourages individual responsibility. > Lovers of safe spaces where nobody has to be overruled is a leftist phenomenon. > > Where are you finding in your George Zimmerman narrative that those three points you name are being forgotten by the Right? I call myself a rightist and those points seem just fine to me. > > Look how easy it is for two sides to see the same facts and come to completely different readings of what is going on. > > Of course, the big question is what would Percy make of it all these days? > I am guessing he would hate what anarchist Marxists are doing to our cities, and attempting to do to our history, and our culture. We all should. I know that Percy would despair that things are not better. And I suspect he might find it very difficult to write those crazy fun house novels of his with their gorgeous endings. > > I suggest that each of us should settle down and set aside time to read the beautiful book by Wilfred McClay, Land of Hope. It clears up a lot of the confusion between Wade Riddick and me. And, borrowing from Ariel in The Tempest, it is so inspiring, it will make any reader cry if he is human. > > Janet Cantor > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:47 AM, Wade Riddick > wrote: > What many people fail to understand is that both the Knotheads and the > NOT-heads (i.e., "cancel culture") spring from the same toxic stew of sins: > pluralism. > > Pluralism is the belief that we have rights not as citizens of countries but > through the groups we belong to - race, gender, etc. The pluralists think > democracy is useless and unless we bind together into our "group" we can't be > represented. Leaving the group for another or disagreeing with your assigned > "interest" is the deepest betrayal and provokes a backlash imminently Freudian > in its ferocity. I haven't seen anything like it since I argued with the > Communist Party cult remnants in graduate school about the value of money. > They don't accept that "interests" cut across these boundaries. They don't > want to see, for instance, that women have an interest in men graduating from > college so they can have marriageable mates. They're an extension of the > Zuckerberg computerization of our lives that wants to chop us up into > interests so they can monetize us when we connect that way. > > NOT-heads aren't "almost angry" at the Constitution; they're in outright > contempt of it because the founders were explicitly against this form of > thinking. In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison warns that giving organized > groups of people the same rights as actual individual citizens will destroy > real rights for those citizens and enable factionalism. This type of group > behavior has to be controlled or it will destroy the community of democracy. > > The knotheads are simply a different side of that tribalism - the Confederacy > tribe. This other great enemy of democracy has been engaged in its own long > war against federalism going back to the days of the first Confederacy. The > anger you see on the "right" is seething resentment from having civil rights > legislation shoved down their throats. Since the '70s, the Republican Party > has been fueled by vendetta Dixiecrats fishing for ways to make the Federal > government fail - first with Nixon's failed budget impoundment, then with tax > cuts they hoped would drive up the deficit so high one day they could use it > as an excuse to gut spending. ("We're finally bankrupt. Yay!") But every > escalating disaster caused by their sabotage of government action - 9/11, > credit default swap implosions, Hurricane Katerina, S&L crises - only > increased demand for government action - because, as you see today, there's no > other central actor in America that can handle crises of this magnitude. > > These two sides resemble one another because racism - tribal revenge - is a > communicable disease, quickly mutualizing contempt when unchecked. Social > media has brought us into one another's lives like never before and many of us > can't stand what we see. (Maybe better digital fences would make better > digital neighbors.) Contempt breeds contempt and without tolerance for one > another, democratic compromise is impossible and we can't govern ourselves - > which suits the short-term interests of the oligarchs just fine. They need to > dismantle property protections (i.e., the justice system), if they're going to > steal from us. > > What does this have to do with anything? > > When you leave groups on their own to organize, those with the most money > oraganize the best. Sick people are probably the most important group in the > country because when you become sick, you lose your autonomy and become > dependent upon others. Sick people also have the least influence on the > political system because all our time and money is tied up in being sick. > Ditto for groups like the poor and unemployed - because you need resources to > organize yourselves. Some interests can't organize themselves like this. > That's the function of government - to organize and address the concerns of > all citizens. > > What the NOT-heads fail to acknowledge is that their attitudes towards > politics benefit the very oligarchs paying for us to hate each other. The > insidious idea underlying pluralism is that these groups somehow "compete" > with one another for "influence" over the government. That is, they bribe > officials. This is what I mean when I say a coup took place at the Supreme > Court level in the 1970s when unelected judges equated bribery of politicians > with "free speech." If you want to see what the Koch Brother's perfect market > in politics looks like, go visit Mexico today where every official is > available for a price (or soon shot). That's the future that awaits us. > > So these two groups, lacking any pragmatic influence on positive agendas, > can't govern. They can only veto, fume and fulminate. That's where we find > ourselves. They both promise heaven on earth but can't even stop graffiti, > much less a pandemic. Reality collides with these delusions and knocks > followers into the same fatalistic flights of fancy that all failed > charismatic cults descend into. Donald Trump becomes the Stokely Carmichael > of white power and the Abbie Hoffman of the pandemic - gonna levitate that > 'ronavirus with the good feelings of his mind ray. > > It's clear how the Confederacy keeps winding up in the same spot. It's more > interesting how the Left fell into this heresy. Basically, in the '60s and > '70s, Nixon destroyed the Left with targeted assassinations of Black Panther > leadership, the War on Drugs, Cointelpro and other programs. The apparatus > developed against democracy in Vietnam and Indonesia was reimported to > "deradicalize" urban resistance to the new oil imperialist/banking oligarchy > that you now see coming apart. This is why, today, we have such high > incarceration rates: Jim Crow Part II. > > With both parties now locked down by bribery, unions getting dismantled and > wages driven down, there was no room anymore for the Left outside academia and > to succeed on the Left there, you had to abandon claims on material wealth and > economic justice or you'd be dealt with too. Courses on Locke, Rousseau and > Madison were shunted aside and restricted to graduate school - if available at > all - so no uppity undergrads would ever have the gall to attack undemocratic > militarism with democratic theory ever again. That forced the Left into a > peculiarly sterile conversation about race and sex - not the underlying > sources of injustice there that could never be questioned but rather on > personal experience - to a fatalistically myopic degree. The end result of > this is something called, bizarrely, Boasian antiracism > . > > A similar defenestration of Christianity occurred on the right. It's > considered "heresy" now to discuss the fact that Jesus wanted debt > cancellation - when in fact the heresy is failing to point out that he did and > that led to the crucifixion. > > Blame it all on the "Me Decade" of the '70s. Both the right and the left > turned toward the personal, especially personal narrative and confessional - > and new forms of communication gave them this power. Both sides fell prey to > exaggerated doctrines of Deconstruction, elevating personal revelation above > law, constitution and Gospel truth enabling the "will-to-power" movements > common in fascism. Out went universal meaning and in swept wishy-washy > relativism with "safe spaces" where nobody has to be overruled. > > Charismatic evangelicals (read: segregationists) substituted personal > confession for Biblical truth. Witness George Zimmerman claiming it was part > of God's plan he shoot an unarmed black boy walking home at night. The Right > ate it up forgetting that > > 1) No greater love has a man than he gives up his life to save another (*not* > takes another). > 2) Do not be overcome by evil but rather overcome evil with good. > 3) There is no fear in love. Love casts out fear. > > Zimmerman got out of the car that night armed with a gun because he was afraid > he might die and unafraid to kill - pretty much the opposite of a Christian. > But the anti-Christian charismatics ate it up in their culture war because he > hated the right people. > > Of course, on the Left, these ironic contradictions abound too. > > When I heard Bruce Jenner confessing happiness at no longer having to lie to > everybody, my first thought was, "He's admitting to cheating with steroids > like I'm positive almost everybody in track and field at the Olympic level has > been doing since the '50s?" > > No. > > My second thought was, "He's apologizing for giving people cancer and diabetes > by selling us Wheaties?" > > Nope again. > > He's transgendered. > > Oh. > > How was that ever my business? > > What about all the people harmed by the cheating? > > Oh, well? > > In the future, we did get our fifteen minutes of fame and now we're all > trapped in our own personality cults. We're one big self-published, unedited > echo chamber of one. Ours is an era of personal narrative devoid of genuine > readers. Reading takes kindness. Reading takes reflection and reflection is > the enemy of sensationalist tweets. (Got to move those ads.) Bridging these > islands of self presupposes an objective reality that can sustain us while > we're "at sea" off your own island. I think Percy referred to this as the > "intersubjective." > > But politically speaking, no man is an island. We can't be our own subjects > of one, which was Madison's point. Substituting mob gangs does not give you a > better form of government. > > We all fall prey to different heresies of perfection. Tech bros seem to think > the world will become a perfect place with enough microchips thrown at it. > (I've debugged too much code to believe that one.) The flip side of that is > nasty too. Nostalgia is the enemy of forgiveness, which was a major theme of > Percy's. Nostalgia imagines a perfect past. If the past was once perfect - > or at least better - then the screwed up way things are today is unnecessary > and we need no forgiveness. We just need to travel back in our memory to get > there. > > But there's no one left showing us how fallible that memory is. Those critics > disappeared in our flattened new perspective on life. > > We shouldn't idealize the past or despise it. Nor should we idealize the > future. We should be, in our dire time of need, raging Pragmatists and > radicalized moderates. > > Wade Riddick > > > ------ Original Message ------ > Received: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 10:43:12 AM EDT > From: Ernest Hutton > To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 11 > > ? > ?Hazel Motes (in Flannery O?Connor?s Wise Blood), searches for God by > railing against organized religion. But in doing so, he prophesizes the > authoritarian end-state pushed by today?s cancel culture: ?Where you come > from is gone, where you thought you were going to never was there, and where > you are is no good unless you can get away from it.? > > O?Connor had it right, and is now a victim of her own perspicacity. This > reign of terror is destroying us all! > > Ernie Hutton > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > Ernest W Hutton Jr. FAICP Assoc AIA > Hutton Associates Inc. > New York/ Westhampton > 917.836.7902 > > 17 Woodbridge Lane, Quiogue > Westhampton Beach NY 11978 > > >> On Aug 6, 2020, at 4:55 AM, Plemmons, Gregory > wrote: > > ? > > Patrick Connelly, a Percy scholar, spoke on Percy and race at one of the > former Walker Percy Weekends. He commonly referenced a quote from Percy (I > wish I knew the original source) about the eternal ?problem of human frailty > trapped in historical circumstance?. That quote has stuck with me. It has > echoes of Pompeii, especially as we seem to be entering a whole new era of > cancel culture. The extreme left?s iconoclasm frightens me almost as much as > that of the Knotheads. I wish people could devote more energy inward toward > themselves and the current state of things. While dissecting the past will > always have some merit, what are we ourselves going to be judged on, fifty > years from now? Even five years from this pandemic? Percy was imperfect as the > best of us, but he and his family also slept in their attic for two weeks > after a bomb threat from the local Klan in 1969, after defending the removal > of the Confederate flag from the principal?s office of the local high > school. > > > > Zadie Smith took a stab recently attempting to answer the question of the > purpose of fiction. ?Does it seem at all surprising in 2019...that we should > have this hypersensitivity?... Whereas many more material issues?economic > inequality, criminal justice reform, immigration?prove frighteningly > intractable, language becomes the convenient battlefield.? > > > > Apologies for the long-winded rant. I read the New Yorker article. It taught > me nothing new. Flannery was trapped as anyone. Her poor physical health is > often overlooked. Lupus is a horrible disease and there were little options > for treatment or even simple relief in her time. Again, ?historical > circumstance?. I like to think if her disease hadn?t claimed her at 39, > her views might have evolved, too. I guess we?ll never know. > > > > Gregory Plemmons, MD > > > >> On Aug 5, 2020, at 7:17 PM, Charles Cowherd > wrote: > >> ? > >> Just to weigh in on the Flannery O?Connor/ Paul Elie scrum. > >> At the seminary (Episcopal) that I attended, a professor had included the > short story ?The Artificial N____? in his compendium of short stories > matched up to the preaching lectionary. (Flannery O?Connor fiction is VERY > popular in Episcopal circles.) > >> A draft copy somehow was made available to my fellow students, who opposed > the inclusion. There was a big townhall meeting, a student petition, > eventually the professor/author agreed to remove the story. > >> This was about 3 years ago. > >> I offer that up merely as another tiny data point in whatever this > particular moment is all about. I know that Walker Percy spoke on that short > story specifically but cannot find it, it?s in CONVERSATIONS with WALKER > PECY. > >> I do think that it?s a topic that we can discuss on this forum with care > and concern and kindness for one another. > >> Also, I have been reading THE NEW YORKER all my life (?a wonderful Yankee > magazine?- my Dad always would say!). Only with this article the magazine it > reveal how detached it is, as a source of journalism, from the world. It > reminded me of Percy?s dislike (too soft a word?) for Descartes. Instead, > Percy believed we are all embodied creatures, fallen and stumbling in the > world. Whereas the New Yorker writes an article with the title: ?How Racist > was Flannery O?Connor?? without any source of social location of time and > place. > >> All my best, > >> Charles Cowherd > >> [ WARNING : This email came from an external source. Please treat this > message with additional caution.] > >> ---------------------------------- > >> * Percy-L Discussion Archives: > https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fpipermail%2Fpercy-l%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=XfC7cic65rm4ymcMNug%2B0i5pmKf%2BJaNoM7zlg%2FH9h%2FU%3D&reserved=0 > >> > >> * Manage Your Membership: > https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpercy-l&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=9Q3bnPoYfd2OBARKSecfmQiRP7qZKsewQN2GiBaj4t0%3D&reserved=0 > >> > >> * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > >> > >> * Visit The Walker Percy Project: > https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibiblio.org%2Fwpercy&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=vrA7LTBbjJ5lMFvbs6qJWQEFInGNNbuAWzJRCZDE1HY%3D&reserved=0 > > > > ---------------------------------- > > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > > > * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marcus at loyno.edu Fri Aug 7 12:11:43 2020 From: marcus at loyno.edu (Marcus Smith) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:11:43 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 15 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes to Lauren Berdy! ? Life is short arguments are silly. Opinions are cul de sacs. Dr Percy was flesh and blood And chance gave him a vibrant Sensitivity. fresh thrilling and Original.? Chance, yes. And choice. Thanks! On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 10:55 AM wrote: > Send Percy-L mailing list submissions to > percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > percy-l-request at lists.ibiblio.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > percy-l-owner at lists.ibiblio.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Percy-L digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Pluralism or community? A response to Wade Riddick. > (Lauren Berdy) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:55:41 -0400 > From: Lauren Berdy > To: "janetcantor37 at yahoo.com" , "Percy-L: > Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Pluralism or community? A response to Wade > Riddick. > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Dr Percy wrote of our life motions while alive upon this Revolving axis. > > Any writer However wild grotesque > Or heavy handed who makes our > Daily sunset more of a surprise to us > And our lunar crescent more a miracle ant writer who rouses our > Sense of the vast tragedy of generations any writer who > Makes us feel the earth Devine > Presence and the night to almost > Be a palpable god wins our > Whole hearted respect. > > What Dr Percy asked of his readers > Is to see the great throb of all > Life?s engines down here. > > Each of us convoluted dark mysteries moving along roads > In the outskirts. Perhaps Catholicism > Provided a path? > > Life is short arguments are silly. > Opinions are cul de sacs. > Dr Percy was flesh and blood > And chance gave him a vibrant > Sensitivity. fresh thrilling and > Original. > > Thank you > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Aug 7, 2020, at 6:36 AM, janetcantor37--- via Percy-L < > percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org> wrote: > > > > ? > > You opened so well. Federalist #10 is my favorite of the Federalist > Papers. > > Then you fell into conclusions that do not match mine. > > > > I agree that pluralism as you describe it - belief in the ascendancy of > our attachment to factions instead of love of the whole, patriotism, love > of country - is not good. > > > > The trouble is when I look up the definition of pluralism, it is the > opposite of how you describe it. > > > > So I am going to tell you how I read #10: > > > > Our country needed a strong central symbol, the flag, a president, so > that our individual interests (factions) could never get big enough to > disrupt or bring down the whole. If we wanted to be a "country", able to > defend itself against outside mischief from other countries, we had to be > unified. Pluralism entailed allowing individuals as well as states and > individual interests to be protected from meddling or destruction, as long > as those individuals did not break the country's laws. > > > > The colonies were worried that they had just left the King and wanted no > parts of a president. So #10 tried to explain all about the protections we > would put in place so individual interests and minorities would not fall > prey to a new kind of tyranny. They would put in place protections of each > state by having representations in a Senate where every colony - eventually > state - would get the same representation no matter how small it was > compared to the others. They would put in place a Court to interpret the > law. And the constant tension among all of these entities would prevent a > president from having too much power and individuals or groups with they > interest from inciting confusions to bring down the whole, the U.S. > > The central power in the hands of a president having to contend with > these safeguards against its controlling all the power would help keep all > individual Americans safe. > > The larger the country, the more diverse the separate states, the more > difficult it would be for a dictatorship to arise. > > The colonies became convinced and stopped fearing having a president. > > > > > > Again, you were doing so well, It is true that leftists of recent > history love chopping us up into groups with grievances so they can better > control us. > > > > Where you went astray is when you began describing the "seething > resentment " of the right and its origins. > > > > There is no resentment in Republicans and other rightists here from > having Civil Rights legislation shoved down "their throats". > > It was the Republicans throughout our history who instigated and helped > bring about the end of slavery against the Democrats. It was the right > which fought for integration. > > The KKK, those who fought to preserve slavery and prevent integration of > schools were always in the Democrat Party. > > LBJ got lots of attention when he passed the Civil Rights act, but > without the votes of Republicans in Congress, it would never have come to > fruition. > > > > Tax cuts were never designed to drive up the deficit, but to spur growth > of the economy which would bring more money into government, not less. When > JFK passed his tax cuts, the economy got a big push and the government made > more money. > > > > Yes, both sides promise heaven on earth. But if you look at the history > from 1976 until today it is a series of democrats pulling the country away > from capitalism and Republicans correcting their mistakes and fixing the > country and then the sliding again when democrats win again. > > Taking power away from the central government to give us goodies or > manage things is a good thing. > > Reagan fixed Carter's disastrous economy. > > Under Clinton we were headed back to catastrophe again until the 1994 > Republican congress came in and fixed everything again, and then Clinton > took credit for it, and that's okay, because at least he didn't get in the > way. And I don't want to ruffle feathers, but recently the pattern began > again. > > And until the plague hit us, we were coasting along in the best economy > ever. > > > > Too much federal spending is terrible, I agree and both sides are guilty > of that. Dismantling private property protection is lethally bad. We agree > there. Oligarchs stealing from private citizens is a disease, yes. Taking > power from individuals is dangerous. But we get more of these bad things > every time we elect Democrats and this time the contrast couldn't be > starker. > > > > I don't know about the Koch Brothers, but George Soros and the teachers > unions have them beat when it comes to stealing power from individuals and > placing it in the hands of government operators. > > > > Wages were going up, unemployment was virtually disappearing, and > minorities of all kinds benefitted from these things the most. And then the > pandemic struck and we were told were have to close down the economy. > > If this hadn't happened, we would have been in excellent economic shape. > > > > The chaos of now is a left wing phenomenon. These destructive mobs are > avowed Marxists by their own definition. the graffiti and bringing down of > statues and buildings and chaos and murder is all a left wing phenomenon > these days - and BTW, occurring in cities run by progressive democrats. > > > > As for the left abandoning claims on material wealth and economic > justice, where do you see that? It is in the Democrat party where you find > the most rich who came into government with modest savings and left multi > millionaires. > > > > Hillsdale College, which I would describe as closer to conservatism than > liberalism as defined these days, does not deconstruct, does not elevate > personal revelation above law or enable will to power movement. Hillsdale > encourages individual responsibility. > > Lovers of safe spaces where nobody has to be overruled is a leftist > phenomenon. > > > > Where are you finding in your George Zimmerman narrative that those > three points you name are being forgotten by the Right? I call myself a > rightist and those points seem just fine to me. > > > > Look how easy it is for two sides to see the same facts and come to > completely different readings of what is going on. > > > > Of course, the big question is what would Percy make of it all these > days? > > I am guessing he would hate what anarchist Marxists are doing to our > cities, and attempting to do to our history, and our culture. We all > should. I know that Percy would despair that things are not better. And I > suspect he might find it very difficult to write those crazy fun house > novels of his with their gorgeous endings. > > > > I suggest that each of us should settle down and set aside time to read > the beautiful book by Wilfred McClay, Land of Hope. It clears up a lot of > the confusion between Wade Riddick and me. And, borrowing from Ariel in The > Tempest, it is so inspiring, it will make any reader cry if he is human. > > > > Janet Cantor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:47 AM, Wade Riddick > > wrote: > > What many people fail to understand is that both the Knotheads and the > > NOT-heads (i.e., "cancel culture") spring from the same toxic stew of > sins: > > pluralism. > > > > Pluralism is the belief that we have rights not as citizens of countries > but > > through the groups we belong to - race, gender, etc. The pluralists > think > > democracy is useless and unless we bind together into our "group" we > can't be > > represented. Leaving the group for another or disagreeing with your > assigned > > "interest" is the deepest betrayal and provokes a backlash imminently > Freudian > > in its ferocity. I haven't seen anything like it since I argued with the > > Communist Party cult remnants in graduate school about the value of > money. > > They don't accept that "interests" cut across these boundaries. They > don't > > want to see, for instance, that women have an interest in men graduating > from > > college so they can have marriageable mates. They're an extension of the > > Zuckerberg computerization of our lives that wants to chop us up into > > interests so they can monetize us when we connect that way. > > > > NOT-heads aren't "almost angry" at the Constitution; they're in outright > > contempt of it because the founders were explicitly against this form of > > thinking. In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison warns that giving > organized > > groups of people the same rights as actual individual citizens will > destroy > > real rights for those citizens and enable factionalism. This type of > group > > behavior has to be controlled or it will destroy the community of > democracy. > > > > The knotheads are simply a different side of that tribalism - the > Confederacy > > tribe. This other great enemy of democracy has been engaged in its own > long > > war against federalism going back to the days of the first Confederacy. > The > > anger you see on the "right" is seething resentment from having civil > rights > > legislation shoved down their throats. Since the '70s, the Republican > Party > > has been fueled by vendetta Dixiecrats fishing for ways to make the > Federal > > government fail - first with Nixon's failed budget impoundment, then > with tax > > cuts they hoped would drive up the deficit so high one day they could > use it > > as an excuse to gut spending. ("We're finally bankrupt. Yay!") But > every > > escalating disaster caused by their sabotage of government action - 9/11, > > credit default swap implosions, Hurricane Katerina, S&L crises - only > > increased demand for government action - because, as you see today, > there's no > > other central actor in America that can handle crises of this magnitude. > > > > These two sides resemble one another because racism - tribal revenge - > is a > > communicable disease, quickly mutualizing contempt when unchecked. > Social > > media has brought us into one another's lives like never before and many > of us > > can't stand what we see. (Maybe better digital fences would make better > > digital neighbors.) Contempt breeds contempt and without tolerance for > one > > another, democratic compromise is impossible and we can't govern > ourselves - > > which suits the short-term interests of the oligarchs just fine. They > need to > > dismantle property protections (i.e., the justice system), if they're > going to > > steal from us. > > > > What does this have to do with anything? > > > > When you leave groups on their own to organize, those with the most money > > oraganize the best. Sick people are probably the most important group > in the > > country because when you become sick, you lose your autonomy and become > > dependent upon others. Sick people also have the least influence on the > > political system because all our time and money is tied up in being > sick. > > Ditto for groups like the poor and unemployed - because you need > resources to > > organize yourselves. Some interests can't organize themselves like > this. > > That's the function of government - to organize and address the concerns > of > > all citizens. > > > > What the NOT-heads fail to acknowledge is that their attitudes towards > > politics benefit the very oligarchs paying for us to hate each other. > The > > insidious idea underlying pluralism is that these groups somehow > "compete" > > with one another for "influence" over the government. That is, they > bribe > > officials. This is what I mean when I say a coup took place at the > Supreme > > Court level in the 1970s when unelected judges equated bribery of > politicians > > with "free speech." If you want to see what the Koch Brother's perfect > market > > in politics looks like, go visit Mexico today where every official is > > available for a price (or soon shot). That's the future that awaits us. > > > > So these two groups, lacking any pragmatic influence on positive agendas, > > can't govern. They can only veto, fume and fulminate. That's where we > find > > ourselves. They both promise heaven on earth but can't even stop > graffiti, > > much less a pandemic. Reality collides with these delusions and knocks > > followers into the same fatalistic flights of fancy that all failed > > charismatic cults descend into. Donald Trump becomes the Stokely > Carmichael > > of white power and the Abbie Hoffman of the pandemic - gonna levitate > that > > 'ronavirus with the good feelings of his mind ray. > > > > It's clear how the Confederacy keeps winding up in the same spot. It's > more > > interesting how the Left fell into this heresy. Basically, in the '60s > and > > '70s, Nixon destroyed the Left with targeted assassinations of Black > Panther > > leadership, the War on Drugs, Cointelpro and other programs. The > apparatus > > developed against democracy in Vietnam and Indonesia was reimported to > > "deradicalize" urban resistance to the new oil imperialist/banking > oligarchy > > that you now see coming apart. This is why, today, we have such high > > incarceration rates: Jim Crow Part II. > > > > With both parties now locked down by bribery, unions getting dismantled > and > > wages driven down, there was no room anymore for the Left outside > academia and > > to succeed on the Left there, you had to abandon claims on material > wealth and > > economic justice or you'd be dealt with too. Courses on Locke, Rousseau > and > > Madison were shunted aside and restricted to graduate school - if > available at > > all - so no uppity undergrads would ever have the gall to attack > undemocratic > > militarism with democratic theory ever again. That forced the Left into > a > > peculiarly sterile conversation about race and sex - not the underlying > > sources of injustice there that could never be questioned but rather on > > personal experience - to a fatalistically myopic degree. The end result > of > > this is something called, bizarrely, Boasian antiracism > > < > https://policytensor.com/2019/10/10/what-in-the-name-of-the-lord-is-boasian-antiracism/ > >. > > > > A similar defenestration of Christianity occurred on the right. It's > > considered "heresy" now to discuss the fact that Jesus wanted debt > > cancellation - when in fact the heresy is failing to point out that he > did and > > that led to the crucifixion. > > > > Blame it all on the "Me Decade" of the '70s. Both the right and the left > > turned toward the personal, especially personal narrative and > confessional - > > and new forms of communication gave them this power. Both sides fell > prey to > > exaggerated doctrines of Deconstruction, elevating personal revelation > above > > law, constitution and Gospel truth enabling the "will-to-power" movements > > common in fascism. Out went universal meaning and in swept wishy-washy > > relativism with "safe spaces" where nobody has to be overruled. > > > > Charismatic evangelicals (read: segregationists) substituted personal > > confession for Biblical truth. Witness George Zimmerman claiming it was > part > > of God's plan he shoot an unarmed black boy walking home at night. The > Right > > ate it up forgetting that > > > > 1) No greater love has a man than he gives up his life to save another > (*not* > > takes another). > > 2) Do not be overcome by evil but rather overcome evil with good. > > 3) There is no fear in love. Love casts out fear. > > > > Zimmerman got out of the car that night armed with a gun because he was > afraid > > he might die and unafraid to kill - pretty much the opposite of a > Christian. > > But the anti-Christian charismatics ate it up in their culture war > because he > > hated the right people. > > > > Of course, on the Left, these ironic contradictions abound too. > > > > When I heard Bruce Jenner confessing happiness at no longer having to > lie to > > everybody, my first thought was, "He's admitting to cheating with > steroids > > like I'm positive almost everybody in track and field at the Olympic > level has > > been doing since the '50s?" > > > > No. > > > > My second thought was, "He's apologizing for giving people cancer and > diabetes > > by selling us Wheaties?" > > > > Nope again. > > > > He's transgendered. > > > > Oh. > > > > How was that ever my business? > > > > What about all the people harmed by the cheating? > > > > Oh, well? > > > > In the future, we did get our fifteen minutes of fame and now we're all > > trapped in our own personality cults. We're one big self-published, > unedited > > echo chamber of one. Ours is an era of personal narrative devoid of > genuine > > readers. Reading takes kindness. Reading takes reflection and > reflection is > > the enemy of sensationalist tweets. (Got to move those ads.) Bridging > these > > islands of self presupposes an objective reality that can sustain us > while > > we're "at sea" off your own island. I think Percy referred to this as > the > > "intersubjective." > > > > But politically speaking, no man is an island. We can't be our own > subjects > > of one, which was Madison's point. Substituting mob gangs does not give > you a > > better form of government. > > > > We all fall prey to different heresies of perfection. Tech bros seem to > think > > the world will become a perfect place with enough microchips thrown at > it. > > (I've debugged too much code to believe that one.) The flip side of > that is > > nasty too. Nostalgia is the enemy of forgiveness, which was a major > theme of > > Percy's. Nostalgia imagines a perfect past. If the past was once > perfect - > > or at least better - then the screwed up way things are today is > unnecessary > > and we need no forgiveness. We just need to travel back in our memory > to get > > there. > > > > But there's no one left showing us how fallible that memory is. Those > critics > > disappeared in our flattened new perspective on life. > > > > We shouldn't idealize the past or despise it. Nor should we idealize the > > future. We should be, in our dire time of need, raging Pragmatists and > > radicalized moderates. > > > > Wade Riddick > > > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > > Received: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 10:43:12 AM EDT > > From: Ernest Hutton > > To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > > > > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 11 > > > > ? > > ?Hazel Motes (in Flannery O?Connor?s Wise Blood), searches for God by > > railing against organi > zed > religion. But in doing so, he prophesizes the > > authoritarian end-state pushed by today?s cancel culture: ?Where you > come > > from is gone, where you thought you were going to never was there, and > where > > you are is no good unless you can get away from it.? > > > > O?Connor had it right, and is now a victim of her own perspicacity. This > > reign of terror is destroying us all! > > > > Ernie Hutton > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > Ernest W Hutton Jr. FAICP Assoc AIA > > Hutton Associates Inc. > > New York/ Westhampton > > 917.836.7902 > > > > 17 Woodbridge Lane, Quiogue > > Westhampton Beach NY 11978 > > > > >> On Aug 6, 2020, at 4:55 AM, Plemmons, Gregory < > gregory.plemmons at vumc.org> > > wrote: > > > ? > > > Patrick Connelly, a Percy scholar, spoke on Percy and race at one of > the > > former Walker Percy Weekends. He commonly referenced a quote from Percy > (I > > wish I knew the original source) about the eternal ?problem of human > frailty > > trapped in historical circumstance?. That quote has stuck with me. It has > > echoes of Pompeii, especially as we seem to be entering a whole new era > of > > cancel culture. The extreme left?s iconoclasm frightens me almost as > much as > > that of the Knotheads. I wish people could devote more energy inward > toward > > themselves and the current state of things. While dissecting the past > will > > always have some merit, what are we ourselves going to be judged on, > fifty > > years from now? Even five years from this pandemic? Percy was imperfect > as the > > best of us, but he and his family also slept in their attic for two weeks > > after a bomb threat from the local Klan in 1969, after defending the > removal > > of the Confederate flag from the principal?s office of the local high > > school. > > > > > > Zadie Smith took a stab recently attempting to answer the question of > the > > purpose of fiction. ?Does it seem at all surprising in 2019...that we > should > > have this hypersensitivity?... Whereas many more material issues?economic > > inequality, criminal justice reform, immigration?prove frighteningly > > intractable, language becomes the convenient battlefield.? > > > > > > Apologies for the long-winded rant. I read the New Yorker article. It > taught > > me nothing new. Flannery was trapped as anyone. Her poor physical health > is > > often overlooked. Lupus is a horrible disease and there were little > options > > for treatment or even simple relief in her time. Again, ?historical > > circumstance?. I like to think if her disease hadn?t claimed her at 39, > > her views might have evolved, too. I guess we?ll never know. > > > > > > Gregory Plemmons, MD > > > > > >> On Aug 5, 2020, at 7:17 PM, Charles Cowherd < > charlescowherd at hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> ? > > >> Just to weigh in on the Flannery O?Connor/ Paul Elie scrum. > > >> At the seminary (Episcopal) that I attended, a professor had included > the > > short story ?The Artificial N____? in his compendium of short stories > > matched up to the preaching lectionary. (Flannery O?Connor fiction is > VERY > > popular in Episcopal circles.) > > >> A draft copy somehow was made available to my fellow students, who > opposed > > the inclusion. There was a big townhall meeting, a student petition, > > eventually the professor/author agreed to remove the story. > > >> This was about 3 years ago. > > >> I offer that up merely as another tiny data point in whatever this > > particular moment is all about. I know that Walker Percy spoke on that > short > > story specifically but cannot find it, it?s in CONVERSATIONS with WALKER > > PECY. > > >> I do think that it?s a topic that we can discuss on this forum with > care > > and concern and kindness for one another. > > >> Also, I have been reading THE NEW YORKER all my life (?a wonderful > Yankee > > magazine?- my Dad always would say!). Only with this article the > magazine it > > reveal how detached it is, as a source of journalism, from the world. It > > reminded me of Percy?s dislike (too soft a word?) for Descartes. Instead, > > Percy believed we are all embodied creatures, fallen and stumbling in the > > world. Whereas the New Yorker writes an article with the title: ?How > Racist > > was Flannery O?Connor?? without any source of social location of time and > > place. > > >> All my best, > > >> Charles Cowherd > > >> [ WARNING : This email came from an external source. Please treat this > > message with additional caution.] > > >> ---------------------------------- > > >> * Percy-L Discussion Archives: > > > https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fpipermail%2Fpercy-l%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=XfC7cic65rm4ymcMNug%2B0i5pmKf%2BJaNoM7zlg%2FH9h%2FU%3D&reserved=0 > > >> > > >> * Manage Your Membership: > > > https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpercy-l&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=9Q3bnPoYfd2OBARKSecfmQiRP7qZKsewQN2GiBaj4t0%3D&reserved=0 > > >> > > >> * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > >> > > >> * Visit The Walker Percy Project: > > > https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibiblio.org%2Fwpercy&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=vrA7LTBbjJ5lMFvbs6qJWQEFInGNNbuAWzJRCZDE1HY%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > ---------------------------------- > > > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > > > > > * Manage Your Membership: > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > > > > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > > > > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------- > > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > > > * Manage Your Membership: > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------- > > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > > > * Manage Your Membership: > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > > ---------------------------------- > > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > > > * Manage Your Membership: > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/attachments/20200807/0240f0d4/attachment.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Percy-L mailing list > Percy-L at lists.ibiblio.org > https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 15 > **************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kareyperkins at gmail.com Fri Aug 7 13:42:42 2020 From: kareyperkins at gmail.com (Karey Perkins) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:42:42 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] A response to Janet Cantor In-Reply-To: <1641287727.1090464.1596796593547@mail.yahoo.com> References: <922yHgHSu9968Set.1596786320@web13.cms.usa.net> <1641287727.1090464.1596796593547@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <24E5ACAA-FD6F-4F62-AE40-23921DBF1188@gmail.com> First of all, thank you once again, Wade, for your brilliant and comprehensive analysis of what?s going on. Each of your paragraphs could be expanded into an entire essay in and of itself. I?d like to respond but the scope of your topics and analysis make it so overwhelming that I just will say, kudos to you. Janet, there is much to respond to in what you wrote, but overall, you are very misinformed. Your facts are just plain incorrect. I cannot address every single point, so I will only address just three of your erroneous points, in order to make my point about your misinformation. I will also refer you to links that will help you to become more factually and correctly informed. #1, the Equivocation Fallacy: Republicans of the 1800s have absolutely nothing to do with the Republicans of today. That the past and the present Republican party bears the same name indicates absolutely nothing about its content nor its character nor its policies. To wit: The parties switched sides in the early 1900s. The Republican Party today foments and campaigns on racist policies and practices against both black and brown people, to the point that it has innocent children in concentration camps at the border, in horrific, inhumane conditions, more concerned about tracking raped girls periods to prevent them from having abortions than providing basic hygiene or tracking their parents to reunite families. (That?s just one example; there are literally hundreds of thousands more.). As for the early twentieth century switch and why, I?ll just leave a couple of links here to educate you as to the general historical background of the switch; there are far more out there for you to read if you?d like to pursue this research: https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a26985261/trump-administration-abortion-period-tracking-migrant-women/ #2, the Koch brothers decades-long stealth takeover of the United States government: Read Jane Mayers' Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires behind the Rise of the Radical Right. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/books/review/dark-money-by-jane-mayer.html https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south #3, that BLM, antifa, and other leftist protesters are inciting violence: Almost all of the protests are peaceful demonstrators exercising their first amendment rights. Nor are these groups in any way at all ?anarchist? - they just don?t like the fascism and racism that is rising in our country. Antifa literally refers to being ?anti-fascist? and is ?a moniker, not a single group with an organizational structure or leader.? It is an adjective, not a noun. Right wing social media and right wing media are propagating the myth that these are groups are violent, yet evidence shows that white nationalists and opportunists have infiltrated the protests to instigate violence. Trump's failures on the economy and the pandemic has caused him to move to campaign as the ?law and order? president, but this too is failing as his ?secret police? (for example in Portland, where federal agents were unmarked and unnamed) are attacking and hooding and capturing unarmed peaceful protesters, pulling them into unmarked vans, and the federal agents are the ones causing the violence themselves, against moms and Catholics. (They?ve since been driven out of Portland, and guess what? No more violence.). These feds are just another photo op for Trump, akin to his tear gassing peaceful protesters in order to walk across the street and raise a Bible (which I doubt Mr. Two Corinthians has ever opened) upside down outside of the Episcopal church in front of the White House. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/who-caused-violence-protests-its-not-antifa/ https://www.voanews.com/usa/four-extremist-groups-suspected-involvement-protest-violence https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-the-law-and-order-candidate-thats-a-laugh/2020/07/14/17037e86-c610-11ea-b037-f9711f89ee46_story.html https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/508597-the-memo-trump-struggles-to-get-traction-with-law-and-order-message https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/trump-getting-what-he-wants-portland/614635/ Your gross misinformation is because of the what?s happened to the media today ? which was supposed to be the fourth estate, part of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches? checks and balances on each other ? but has failed miserably at its job ever since the FCC Fairness Doctrine was repealed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#:~:text=The%20fairness%20doctrine%20of%20the,honest%2C%20equitable%2C%20and%20balanced. Because of that, news outlets of any source - TV, newspapers, magazines, internet ? can report anything they want. So we now have two completely different realities, and half of American live in one reality conveyed by one side of the aisle, while the other half lives in an entirely different reality conveyed by a different side of the aisle. Oh, wait, who said, fifty years ago, that that would happen? It has never been more important that Americans today have to be critical thinkers to evaluate news sources and information they come across to find out what the truth really is. But critical thinking and civics classes no longer exist in our high schools, so few Americans have any idea how to evaluate the media. Hence the great divide that Percy writes about - not just two sets of attitudes about the same set of facts, but completely different sets of facts, completely different realities entirely. My hope is that you will find better, more accurate sources, and become a better critical thinker concerning the constant bombardment of lies and misinformation that propagate in America. As for Lauren?s poem, I have another poem (there are many versions, here?s just one): First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me America is in a crisis. Percy would not have been quiet, and he wasn?t. He spoke out in his novels, even before this happened. Karey Karey Perkins, M.A., M.A.T., Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of English 296A Turner Hall, South Carolina State University Orangeburg, SC 29117 kperkin1 at scsu.edu | 803-536-7016 www.scsu.edu Member, Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-0002 kareperk at ttu.edu | http://www.pragmaticism.net > On Aug 7, 2020, at 6:36 AM, janetcantor37--- via Percy-L wrote: > > You opened so well. Federalist #10 is my favorite of the Federalist Papers. > Then you fell into conclusions that do not match mine. > > I agree that pluralism as you describe it - belief in the ascendancy of our attachment to factions instead of love of the whole, patriotism, love of country - is not good. > > The trouble is when I look up the definition of pluralism, it is the opposite of how you describe it. > > So I am going to tell you how I read #10: > > Our country needed a strong central symbol, the flag, a president, so that our individual interests (factions) could never get big enough to disrupt or bring down the whole. If we wanted to be a "country", able to defend itself against outside mischief from other countries, we had to be unified. Pluralism entailed allowing individuals as well as states and individual interests to be protected from meddling or destruction, as long as those individuals did not break the country's laws. > > The colonies were worried that they had just left the King and wanted no parts of a president. So #10 tried to explain all about the protections we would put in place so individual interests and minorities would not fall prey to a new kind of tyranny. They would put in place protections of each state by having representations in a Senate where every colony - eventually state - would get the same representation no matter how small it was compared to the others. They would put in place a Court to interpret the law. And the constant tension among all of these entities would prevent a president from having too much power and individuals or groups with they interest from inciting confusions to bring down the whole, the U.S. > The central power in the hands of a president having to contend with these safeguards against its controlling all the power would help keep all individual Americans safe. > The larger the country, the more diverse the separate states, the more difficult it would be for a dictatorship to arise. > The colonies became convinced and stopped fearing having a president. > > > Again, you were doing so well, It is true that leftists of recent history love chopping us up into groups with grievances so they can better control us. > > Where you went astray is when you began describing the "seething resentment " of the right and its origins. > > There is no resentment in Republicans and other rightists here from having Civil Rights legislation shoved down "their throats". > It was the Republicans throughout our history who instigated and helped bring about the end of slavery against the Democrats. It was the right which fought for integration. > The KKK, those who fought to preserve slavery and prevent integration of schools were always in the Democrat Party. > LBJ got lots of attention when he passed the Civil Rights act, but without the votes of Republicans in Congress, it would never have come to fruition. > > Tax cuts were never designed to drive up the deficit, but to spur growth of the economy which would bring more money into government, not less. When JFK passed his tax cuts, the economy got a big push and the government made more money. > > Yes, both sides promise heaven on earth. But if you look at the history from 1976 until today it is a series of democrats pulling the country away from capitalism and Republicans correcting their mistakes and fixing the country and then the sliding again when democrats win again. > Taking power away from the central government to give us goodies or manage things is a good thing. > Reagan fixed Carter's disastrous economy. > Under Clinton we were headed back to catastrophe again until the 1994 Republican congress came in and fixed everything again, and then Clinton took credit for it, and that's okay, because at least he didn't get in the way. And I don't want to ruffle feathers, but recently the pattern began again. > And until the plague hit us, we were coasting along in the best economy ever. > > Too much federal spending is terrible, I agree and both sides are guilty of that. Dismantling private property protection is lethally bad. We agree there. Oligarchs stealing from private citizens is a disease, yes. Taking power from individuals is dangerous. But we get more of these bad things every time we elect Democrats and this time the contrast couldn't be starker. > > I don't know about the Koch Brothers, but George Soros and the teachers unions have them beat when it comes to stealing power from individuals and placing it in the hands of government operators. > > Wages were going up, unemployment was virtually disappearing, and minorities of all kinds benefitted from these things the most. And then the pandemic struck and we were told were have to close down the economy. > If this hadn't happened, we would have been in excellent economic shape. > > The chaos of now is a left wing phenomenon. These destructive mobs are avowed Marxists by their own definition. the graffiti and bringing down of statues and buildings and chaos and murder is all a left wing phenomenon these days - and BTW, occurring in cities run by progressive democrats. > > As for the left abandoning claims on material wealth and economic justice, where do you see that? It is in the Democrat party where you find the most rich who came into government with modest savings and left multi millionaires. > > Hillsdale College, which I would describe as closer to conservatism than liberalism as defined these days, does not deconstruct, does not elevate personal revelation above law or enable will to power movement. Hillsdale encourages individual responsibility. > Lovers of safe spaces where nobody has to be overruled is a leftist phenomenon. > > Where are you finding in your George Zimmerman narrative that those three points you name are being forgotten by the Right? I call myself a rightist and those points seem just fine to me. > > Look how easy it is for two sides to see the same facts and come to completely different readings of what is going on. > > Of course, the big question is what would Percy make of it all these days? > I am guessing he would hate what anarchist Marxists are doing to our cities, and attempting to do to our history, and our culture. We all should. I know that Percy would despair that things are not better. And I suspect he might find it very difficult to write those crazy fun house novels of his with their gorgeous endings. > > I suggest that each of us should settle down and set aside time to read the beautiful book by Wilfred McClay, Land of Hope. It clears up a lot of the confusion between Wade Riddick and me. And, borrowing from Ariel in The Tempest, it is so inspiring, it will make any reader cry if he is human. > > Janet Cantor > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:47 AM, Wade Riddick > wrote: > What many people fail to understand is that both the Knotheads and the > NOT-heads (i.e., "cancel culture") spring from the same toxic stew of sins: > pluralism. > > Pluralism is the belief that we have rights not as citizens of countries but > through the groups we belong to - race, gender, etc. The pluralists think > democracy is useless and unless we bind together into our "group" we can't be > represented. Leaving the group for another or disagreeing with your assigned > "interest" is the deepest betrayal and provokes a backlash imminently Freudian > in its ferocity. I haven't seen anything like it since I argued with the > Communist Party cult remnants in graduate school about the value of money. > They don't accept that "interests" cut across these boundaries. They don't > want to see, for instance, that women have an interest in men graduating from > college so they can have marriageable mates. They're an extension of the > Zuckerberg computerization of our lives that wants to chop us up into > interests so they can monetize us when we connect that way. > > NOT-heads aren't "almost angry" at the Constitution; they're in outright > contempt of it because the founders were explicitly against this form of > thinking. In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison warns that giving organized > groups of people the same rights as actual individual citizens will destroy > real rights for those citizens and enable factionalism. This type of group > behavior has to be controlled or it will destroy the community of democracy. > > The knotheads are simply a different side of that tribalism - the Confederacy > tribe. This other great enemy of democracy has been engaged in its own long > war against federalism going back to the days of the first Confederacy. The > anger you see on the "right" is seething resentment from having civil rights > legislation shoved down their throats. Since the '70s, the Republican Party > has been fueled by vendetta Dixiecrats fishing for ways to make the Federal > government fail - first with Nixon's failed budget impoundment, then with tax > cuts they hoped would drive up the deficit so high one day they could use it > as an excuse to gut spending. ("We're finally bankrupt. Yay!") But every > escalating disaster caused by their sabotage of government action - 9/11, > credit default swap implosions, Hurricane Katerina, S&L crises - only > increased demand for government action - because, as you see today, there's no > other central actor in America that can handle crises of this magnitude. > > These two sides resemble one another because racism - tribal revenge - is a > communicable disease, quickly mutualizing contempt when unchecked. Social > media has brought us into one another's lives like never before and many of us > can't stand what we see. (Maybe better digital fences would make better > digital neighbors.) Contempt breeds contempt and without tolerance for one > another, democratic compromise is impossible and we can't govern ourselves - > which suits the short-term interests of the oligarchs just fine. They need to > dismantle property protections (i.e., the justice system), if they're going to > steal from us. > > What does this have to do with anything? > > When you leave groups on their own to organize, those with the most money > oraganize the best. Sick people are probably the most important group in the > country because when you become sick, you lose your autonomy and become > dependent upon others. Sick people also have the least influence on the > political system because all our time and money is tied up in being sick. > Ditto for groups like the poor and unemployed - because you need resources to > organize yourselves. Some interests can't organize themselves like this. > That's the function of government - to organize and address the concerns of > all citizens. > > What the NOT-heads fail to acknowledge is that their attitudes towards > politics benefit the very oligarchs paying for us to hate each other. The > insidious idea underlying pluralism is that these groups somehow "compete" > with one another for "influence" over the government. That is, they bribe > officials. This is what I mean when I say a coup took place at the Supreme > Court level in the 1970s when unelected judges equated bribery of politicians > with "free speech." If you want to see what the Koch Brother's perfect market > in politics looks like, go visit Mexico today where every official is > available for a price (or soon shot). That's the future that awaits us. > > So these two groups, lacking any pragmatic influence on positive agendas, > can't govern. They can only veto, fume and fulminate. That's where we find > ourselves. They both promise heaven on earth but can't even stop graffiti, > much less a pandemic. Reality collides with these delusions and knocks > followers into the same fatalistic flights of fancy that all failed > charismatic cults descend into. Donald Trump becomes the Stokely Carmichael > of white power and the Abbie Hoffman of the pandemic - gonna levitate that > 'ronavirus with the good feelings of his mind ray. > > It's clear how the Confederacy keeps winding up in the same spot. It's more > interesting how the Left fell into this heresy. Basically, in the '60s and > '70s, Nixon destroyed the Left with targeted assassinations of Black Panther > leadership, the War on Drugs, Cointelpro and other programs. The apparatus > developed against democracy in Vietnam and Indonesia was reimported to > "deradicalize" urban resistance to the new oil imperialist/banking oligarchy > that you now see coming apart. This is why, today, we have such high > incarceration rates: Jim Crow Part II. > > With both parties now locked down by bribery, unions getting dismantled and > wages driven down, there was no room anymore for the Left outside academia and > to succeed on the Left there, you had to abandon claims on material wealth and > economic justice or you'd be dealt with too. Courses on Locke, Rousseau and > Madison were shunted aside and restricted to graduate school - if available at > all - so no uppity undergrads would ever have the gall to attack undemocratic > militarism with democratic theory ever again. That forced the Left into a > peculiarly sterile conversation about race and sex - not the underlying > sources of injustice there that could never be questioned but rather on > personal experience - to a fatalistically myopic degree. The end result of > this is something called, bizarrely, Boasian antiracism > >. > > A similar defenestration of Christianity occurred on the right. It's > considered "heresy" now to discuss the fact that Jesus wanted debt > cancellation - when in fact the heresy is failing to point out that he did and > that led to the crucifixion. > > Blame it all on the "Me Decade" of the '70s. Both the right and the left > turned toward the personal, especially personal narrative and confessional - > and new forms of communication gave them this power. Both sides fell prey to > exaggerated doctrines of Deconstruction, elevating personal revelation above > law, constitution and Gospel truth enabling the "will-to-power" movements > common in fascism. Out went universal meaning and in swept wishy-washy > relativism with "safe spaces" where nobody has to be overruled. > > Charismatic evangelicals (read: segregationists) substituted personal > confession for Biblical truth. Witness George Zimmerman claiming it was part > of God's plan he shoot an unarmed black boy walking home at night. The Right > ate it up forgetting that > > 1) No greater love has a man than he gives up his life to save another (*not* > takes another). > 2) Do not be overcome by evil but rather overcome evil with good. > 3) There is no fear in love. Love casts out fear. > > Zimmerman got out of the car that night armed with a gun because he was afraid > he might die and unafraid to kill - pretty much the opposite of a Christian. > But the anti-Christian charismatics ate it up in their culture war because he > hated the right people. > > Of course, on the Left, these ironic contradictions abound too. > > When I heard Bruce Jenner confessing happiness at no longer having to lie to > everybody, my first thought was, "He's admitting to cheating with steroids > like I'm positive almost everybody in track and field at the Olympic level has > been doing since the '50s?" > > No. > > My second thought was, "He's apologizing for giving people cancer and diabetes > by selling us Wheaties?" > > Nope again. > > He's transgendered. > > Oh. > > How was that ever my business? > > What about all the people harmed by the cheating? > > Oh, well? > > In the future, we did get our fifteen minutes of fame and now we're all > trapped in our own personality cults. We're one big self-published, unedited > echo chamber of one. Ours is an era of personal narrative devoid of genuine > readers. Reading takes kindness. Reading takes reflection and reflection is > the enemy of sensationalist tweets. (Got to move those ads.) Bridging these > islands of self presupposes an objective reality that can sustain us while > we're "at sea" off your own island. I think Percy referred to this as the > "intersubjective." > > But politically speaking, no man is an island. We can't be our own subjects > of one, which was Madison's point. Substituting mob gangs does not give you a > better form of government. > > We all fall prey to different heresies of perfection. Tech bros seem to think > the world will become a perfect place with enough microchips thrown at it. > (I've debugged too much code to believe that one.) The flip side of that is > nasty too. Nostalgia is the enemy of forgiveness, which was a major theme of > Percy's. Nostalgia imagines a perfect past. If the past was once perfect - > or at least better - then the screwed up way things are today is unnecessary > and we need no forgiveness. We just need to travel back in our memory to get > there. > > But there's no one left showing us how fallible that memory is. Those critics > disappeared in our flattened new perspective on life. > > We shouldn't idealize the past or despise it. Nor should we idealize the > future. We should be, in our dire time of need, raging Pragmatists and > radicalized moderates. > > Wade Riddick > > > ------ Original Message ------ > Received: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 10:43:12 AM EDT > From: Ernest Hutton > > To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > > > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 11 > > ? > ?Hazel Motes (in Flannery O?Connor?s Wise Blood), searches for God by > railing against organized religion. But in doing so, he prophesizes the > authoritarian end-state pushed by today?s cancel culture: ?Where you come > from is gone, where you thought you were going to never was there, and where > you are is no good unless you can get away from it.? > > O?Connor had it right, and is now a victim of her own perspicacity. This > reign of terror is destroying us all! > > Ernie Hutton > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > Ernest W Hutton Jr. FAICP Assoc AIA > Hutton Associates Inc. > New York/ Westhampton > 917.836.7902 > > 17 Woodbridge Lane, Quiogue > Westhampton Beach NY 11978 > > >> On Aug 6, 2020, at 4:55 AM, Plemmons, Gregory > > wrote: > > ? > > Patrick Connelly, a Percy scholar, spoke on Percy and race at one of the > former Walker Percy Weekends. He commonly referenced a quote from Percy (I > wish I knew the original source) about the eternal ?problem of human frailty > trapped in historical circumstance?. That quote has stuck with me. It has > echoes of Pompeii, especially as we seem to be entering a whole new era of > cancel culture. The extreme left?s iconoclasm frightens me almost as much as > that of the Knotheads. I wish people could devote more energy inward toward > themselves and the current state of things. While dissecting the past will > always have some merit, what are we ourselves going to be judged on, fifty > years from now? Even five years from this pandemic? Percy was imperfect as the > best of us, but he and his family also slept in their attic for two weeks > after a bomb threat from the local Klan in 1969, after defending the removal > of the Confederate flag from the principal?s office of the local high > school. > > > > Zadie Smith took a stab recently attempting to answer the question of the > purpose of fiction. ?Does it seem at all surprising in 2019...that we should > have this hypersensitivity?... Whereas many more material issues?economic > inequality, criminal justice reform, immigration?prove frighteningly > intractable, language becomes the convenient battlefield.? > > > > Apologies for the long-winded rant. I read the New Yorker article. It taught > me nothing new. Flannery was trapped as anyone. Her poor physical health is > often overlooked. Lupus is a horrible disease and there were little options > for treatment or even simple relief in her time. Again, ?historical > circumstance?. I like to think if her disease hadn?t claimed her at 39, > her views might have evolved, too. I guess we?ll never know. > > > > Gregory Plemmons, MD > > > >> On Aug 5, 2020, at 7:17 PM, Charles Cowherd > > wrote: > >> ? > >> Just to weigh in on the Flannery O?Connor/ Paul Elie scrum. > >> At the seminary (Episcopal) that I attended, a professor had included the > short story ?The Artificial N____? in his compendium of short stories > matched up to the preaching lectionary. (Flannery O?Connor fiction is VERY > popular in Episcopal circles.) > >> A draft copy somehow was made available to my fellow students, who opposed > the inclusion. There was a big townhall meeting, a student petition, > eventually the professor/author agreed to remove the story. > >> This was about 3 years ago. > >> I offer that up merely as another tiny data point in whatever this > particular moment is all about. I know that Walker Percy spoke on that short > story specifically but cannot find it, it?s in CONVERSATIONS with WALKER > PECY. > >> I do think that it?s a topic that we can discuss on this forum with care > and concern and kindness for one another. > >> Also, I have been reading THE NEW YORKER all my life (?a wonderful Yankee > magazine?- my Dad always would say!). Only with this article the magazine it > reveal how detached it is, as a source of journalism, from the world. It > reminded me of Percy?s dislike (too soft a word?) for Descartes. Instead, > Percy believed we are all embodied creatures, fallen and stumbling in the > world. Whereas the New Yorker writes an article with the title: ?How Racist > was Flannery O?Connor?? without any source of social location of time and > place. > >> All my best, > >> Charles Cowherd > >> [ WARNING : This email came from an external source. Please treat this > message with additional caution.] > >> ---------------------------------- > >> * Percy-L Discussion Archives: > https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fpipermail%2Fpercy-l%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=XfC7cic65rm4ymcMNug%2B0i5pmKf%2BJaNoM7zlg%2FH9h%2FU%3D&reserved=0 > >> > >> * Manage Your Membership: > https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpercy-l&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=9Q3bnPoYfd2OBARKSecfmQiRP7qZKsewQN2GiBaj4t0%3D&reserved=0 > >> > >> * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > >> > >> * Visit The Walker Percy Project: > https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibiblio.org%2Fwpercy&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=vrA7LTBbjJ5lMFvbs6qJWQEFInGNNbuAWzJRCZDE1HY%3D&reserved=0 > > > > ---------------------------------- > > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > > > * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhonda_mcdonnell at msn.com Fri Aug 7 13:31:38 2020 From: rhonda_mcdonnell at msn.com (RHONDA MCDONNELL) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 17:31:38 +0000 Subject: [percy-l] Pluralism or community? A response to Wade Riddick. Message-ID: In just the last few posts, where we see some polarization, I am reminded of Tom More reflecting on the arguments among his fellow prisoners in THE THANATOS SYNDROME ? can?t help but smile. Wishing y?all well, Rhonda Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 7, 2020, at 6:36 AM, janetcantor37--- via Percy-L wrote: > From kareyperkins at gmail.com Fri Aug 7 14:24:38 2020 From: kareyperkins at gmail.com (Karey Perkins) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 14:24:38 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] Pluralism or community? A response to Wade Riddick. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6C0E752F-2B90-4CCE-A3FD-4688B26C6DAC@gmail.com> According to Charles Sanders Peirce (paraphrased badly): There is a reality out there. It?s not a matter of opinion; reality exists quite separately from any human opinion. While no human has a 100% grasp on reality, some human views are more close to that real reality out there than others. Those whose views of reality most closely coincide with reality itself are most successful; those whose views deviate more from what reality actually is ? will fail. I may believe I can fly, but if I jump off of tall buildings in order to practice that belief, it won?t bode well for me. If I believe in gravity, I?ll not be jumping out of buildings. I?ll fare far better than my compatriot who IS jumping off of buildings. That?s pragmaticism. We as humans have a profound responsibility to seek the truth and propagate the truth ? not as an abstraction, but as a flesh-and blood physical reality. Because dying in a pandemic is a flesh and blood reality. Being unemployed (by some estimates, 47.2% of Americans) and evicted from your home is a flesh and blood reality with real physical consequences. This is no longer about abstracted religious ?belief? or political ?belief.? This is not about silly political arguments. This is life and death. This is not an abstraction for hundreds of thousands of Americans. Karey Karey Perkins, M.A., M.A.T., Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of English 296A Turner Hall, South Carolina State University Orangeburg, SC 29117 kperkin1 at scsu.edu | 803-536-7016 www.scsu.edu Member, Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-0002 kareperk at ttu.edu | http://www.pragmaticism.net > On Aug 7, 2020, at 1:31 PM, RHONDA MCDONNELL wrote: > > In just the last few posts, where we see some polarization, I am reminded of Tom More reflecting on the arguments among his fellow prisoners in THE THANATOS SYNDROME ? can?t help but smile. > > Wishing y?all well, > > Rhonda > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Aug 7, 2020, at 6:36 AM, janetcantor37--- via Percy-L wrote: >> > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lauren.stacy.berdy at gmail.com Fri Aug 7 15:40:17 2020 From: lauren.stacy.berdy at gmail.com (Lauren Berdy) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:40:17 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] Pluralism or community? A response to Wade Riddick. In-Reply-To: <6C0E752F-2B90-4CCE-A3FD-4688B26C6DAC@gmail.com> References: <6C0E752F-2B90-4CCE-A3FD-4688B26C6DAC@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8AF5E684-C322-4292-A330-BBCDD833CF21@gmail.com> WP had an approach to reality It was in the weeds of our particulars. He knew our particulars are worthy Of our study and admiration and We are not divorced from reality By being particulars. He was interested in our Creaturely Uniqueness Isn?t that remarkable? Come on the man sucked crawfish Heads in the restaurants with The klan Oldsmobile dealer. He had Quite a perch even better than Fire tower. And he was without fear. I see him watching Everything Even The Hulk Dostoevsky gambled with a fever They both lived inside life. Not abstract Never It is our uniqueness that attracts The observer The universe is not expendable It?s not Useful It opens the door on discovery Wasn?t he a good explorer? Nuff said Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 7, 2020, at 2:25 PM, Karey Perkins wrote: > > ?According to Charles Sanders Peirce (paraphrased badly): > > There is a reality out there. It?s not a matter of opinion; reality exists quite separately from any human opinion. While no human has a 100% grasp on reality, some human views are more close to that real reality out there than others. Those whose views of reality most closely coincide with reality itself are most successful; those whose views deviate more from what reality actually is ? will fail. > > I may believe I can fly, but if I jump off of tall buildings in order to practice that belief, it won?t bode well for me. > > If I believe in gravity, I?ll not be jumping out of buildings. I?ll fare far better than my compatriot who IS jumping off of buildings. > > That?s pragmaticism. > > We as humans have a profound responsibility to seek the truth and propagate the truth ? not as an abstraction, but as a flesh-and blood physical reality. > > Because dying in a pandemic is a flesh and blood reality. Being unemployed (by some estimates, 47.2% of Americans) and evicted from your home is a flesh and blood reality with real physical consequences. > > This is no longer about abstracted religious ?belief? or political ?belief.? This is not about silly political arguments. This is life and death. > > This is not an abstraction for hundreds of thousands of Americans. > > Karey > > > Karey Perkins, M.A., M.A.T., Ph.D. > Assistant Professor, Department of English > 296A Turner Hall, South Carolina State University > Orangeburg, SC 29117 > kperkin1 at scsu.edu | 803-536-7016 > www.scsu.edu > Member, Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism > Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-0002 > kareperk at ttu.edu | http://www.pragmaticism.net > > > > >> On Aug 7, 2020, at 1:31 PM, RHONDA MCDONNELL wrote: >> >> In just the last few posts, where we see some polarization, I am reminded of Tom More reflecting on the arguments among his fellow prisoners in THE THANATOS SYNDROME ? can?t help but smile. >> >> Wishing y?all well, >> >> Rhonda >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Aug 7, 2020, at 6:36 AM, janetcantor37--- via Percy-L wrote: >>> >> >> ---------------------------------- >> * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ >> >> * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l >> >> * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org >> >> * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhonda_mcdonnell at msn.com Fri Aug 7 13:46:05 2020 From: rhonda_mcdonnell at msn.com (RHONDA MCDONNELL) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 17:46:05 +0000 Subject: [percy-l] Pluralism or community? A response to Wade Riddick. In-Reply-To: <1641287727.1090464.1596796593547@mail.yahoo.com> References: <922yHgHSu9968Set.1596786320@web13.cms.usa.net>, <1641287727.1090464.1596796593547@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In just the last few posts, where we see some polarization, I am reminded of Tom More reflecting on the arguments among his fellow prisoners in THE THANATOS SYNDROME ? can?t help but smile. Wishing y?all well, Rhonda Get Outlook for iOS ________________________________ From: Percy-L on behalf of janetcantor37--- via Percy-L Sent: Friday, August 7, 2020 6:36:33 AM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Cc: janetcantor37 at yahoo.com Subject: [percy-l] Pluralism or community? A response to Wade Riddick. You opened so well. Federalist #10 is my favorite of the Federalist Papers. Then you fell into conclusions that do not match mine. I agree that pluralism as you describe it - belief in the ascendancy of our attachment to factions instead of love of the whole, patriotism, love of country - is not good. The trouble is when I look up the definition of pluralism, it is the opposite of how you describe it. So I am going to tell you how I read #10: Our country needed a strong central symbol, the flag, a president, so that our individual interests (factions) could never get big enough to disrupt or bring down the whole. If we wanted to be a "country", able to defend itself against outside mischief from other countries, we had to be unified. Pluralism entailed allowing individuals as well as states and individual interests to be protected from meddling or destruction, as long as those individuals did not break the country's laws. The colonies were worried that they had just left the King and wanted no parts of a president. So #10 tried to explain all about the protections we would put in place so individual interests and minorities would not fall prey to a new kind of tyranny. They would put in place protections of each state by having representations in a Senate where every colony - eventually state - would get the same representation no matter how small it was compared to the others. They would put in place a Court to interpret the law. And the constant tension among all of these entities would prevent a president from having too much power and individuals or groups with they interest from inciting confusions to bring down the whole, the U.S. The central power in the hands of a president having to contend with these safeguards against its controlling all the power would help keep all individual Americans safe. The larger the country, the more diverse the separate states, the more difficult it would be for a dictatorship to arise. The colonies became convinced and stopped fearing having a president. Again, you were doing so well, It is true that leftists of recent history love chopping us up into groups with grievances so they can better control us. Where you went astray is when you began describing the "seething resentment " of the right and its origins. There is no resentment in Republicans and other rightists here from having Civil Rights legislation shoved down "their throats". It was the Republicans throughout our history who instigated and helped bring about the end of slavery against the Democrats. It was the right which fought for integration. The KKK, those who fought to preserve slavery and prevent integration of schools were always in the Democrat Party. LBJ got lots of attention when he passed the Civil Rights act, but without the votes of Republicans in Congress, it would never have come to fruition. Tax cuts were never designed to drive up the deficit, but to spur growth of the economy which would bring more money into government, not less. When JFK passed his tax cuts, the economy got a big push and the government made more money. Yes, both sides promise heaven on earth. But if you look at the history from 1976 until today it is a series of democrats pulling the country away from capitalism and Republicans correcting their mistakes and fixing the country and then the sliding again when democrats win again. Taking power away from the central government to give us goodies or manage things is a good thing. Reagan fixed Carter's disastrous economy. Under Clinton we were headed back to catastrophe again until the 1994 Republican congress came in and fixed everything again, and then Clinton took credit for it, and that's okay, because at least he didn't get in the way. And I don't want to ruffle feathers, but recently the pattern began again. And until the plague hit us, we were coasting along in the best economy ever. Too much federal spending is terrible, I agree and both sides are guilty of that. Dismantling private property protection is lethally bad. We agree there. Oligarchs stealing from private citizens is a disease, yes. Taking power from individuals is dangerous. But we get more of these bad things every time we elect Democrats and this time the contrast couldn't be starker. I don't know about the Koch Brothers, but George Soros and the teachers unions have them beat when it comes to stealing power from individuals and placing it in the hands of government operators. Wages were going up, unemployment was virtually disappearing, and minorities of all kinds benefitted from these things the most. And then the pandemic struck and we were told were have to close down the economy. If this hadn't happened, we would have been in excellent economic shape. The chaos of now is a left wing phenomenon. These destructive mobs are avowed Marxists by their own definition. the graffiti and bringing down of statues and buildings and chaos and murder is all a left wing phenomenon these days - and BTW, occurring in cities run by progressive democrats. As for the left abandoning claims on material wealth and economic justice, where do you see that? It is in the Democrat party where you find the most rich who came into government with modest savings and left multi millionaires. Hillsdale College, which I would describe as closer to conservatism than liberalism as defined these days, does not deconstruct, does not elevate personal revelation above law or enable will to power movement. Hillsdale encourages individual responsibility. Lovers of safe spaces where nobody has to be overruled is a leftist phenomenon. Where are you finding in your George Zimmerman narrative that those three points you name are being forgotten by the Right? I call myself a rightist and those points seem just fine to me. Look how easy it is for two sides to see the same facts and come to completely different readings of what is going on. Of course, the big question is what would Percy make of it all these days? I am guessing he would hate what anarchist Marxists are doing to our cities, and attempting to do to our history, and our culture. We all should. I know that Percy would despair that things are not better. And I suspect he might find it very difficult to write those crazy fun house novels of his with their gorgeous endings. I suggest that each of us should settle down and set aside time to read the beautiful book by Wilfred McClay, Land of Hope. It clears up a lot of the confusion between Wade Riddick and me. And, borrowing from Ariel in The Tempest, it is so inspiring, it will make any reader cry if he is human. Janet Cantor On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:47 AM, Wade Riddick wrote: What many people fail to understand is that both the Knotheads and the NOT-heads (i.e., "cancel culture") spring from the same toxic stew of sins: pluralism. Pluralism is the belief that we have rights not as citizens of countries but through the groups we belong to - race, gender, etc. The pluralists think democracy is useless and unless we bind together into our "group" we can't be represented. Leaving the group for another or disagreeing with your assigned "interest" is the deepest betrayal and provokes a backlash imminently Freudian in its ferocity. I haven't seen anything like it since I argued with the Communist Party cult remnants in graduate school about the value of money. They don't accept that "interests" cut across these boundaries. They don't want to see, for instance, that women have an interest in men graduating from college so they can have marriageable mates. They're an extension of the Zuckerberg computerization of our lives that wants to chop us up into interests so they can monetize us when we connect that way. NOT-heads aren't "almost angry" at the Constitution; they're in outright contempt of it because the founders were explicitly against this form of thinking. In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison warns that giving organized groups of people the same rights as actual individual citizens will destroy real rights for those citizens and enable factionalism. This type of group behavior has to be controlled or it will destroy the community of democracy. The knotheads are simply a different side of that tribalism - the Confederacy tribe. This other great enemy of democracy has been engaged in its own long war against federalism going back to the days of the first Confederacy. The anger you see on the "right" is seething resentment from having civil rights legislation shoved down their throats. Since the '70s, the Republican Party has been fueled by vendetta Dixiecrats fishing for ways to make the Federal government fail - first with Nixon's failed budget impoundment, then with tax cuts they hoped would drive up the deficit so high one day they could use it as an excuse to gut spending. ("We're finally bankrupt. Yay!") But every escalating disaster caused by their sabotage of government action - 9/11, credit default swap implosions, Hurricane Katerina, S&L crises - only increased demand for government action - because, as you see today, there's no other central actor in America that can handle crises of this magnitude. These two sides resemble one another because racism - tribal revenge - is a communicable disease, quickly mutualizing contempt when unchecked. Social media has brought us into one another's lives like never before and many of us can't stand what we see. (Maybe better digital fences would make better digital neighbors.) Contempt breeds contempt and without tolerance for one another, democratic compromise is impossible and we can't govern ourselves - which suits the short-term interests of the oligarchs just fine. They need to dismantle property protections (i.e., the justice system), if they're going to steal from us. What does this have to do with anything? When you leave groups on their own to organize, those with the most money oraganize the best. Sick people are probably the most important group in the country because when you become sick, you lose your autonomy and become dependent upon others. Sick people also have the least influence on the political system because all our time and money is tied up in being sick. Ditto for groups like the poor and unemployed - because you need resources to organize yourselves. Some interests can't organize themselves like this. That's the function of government - to organize and address the concerns of all citizens. What the NOT-heads fail to acknowledge is that their attitudes towards politics benefit the very oligarchs paying for us to hate each other. The insidious idea underlying pluralism is that these groups somehow "compete" with one another for "influence" over the government. That is, they bribe officials. This is what I mean when I say a coup took place at the Supreme Court level in the 1970s when unelected judges equated bribery of politicians with "free speech." If you want to see what the Koch Brother's perfect market in politics looks like, go visit Mexico today where every official is available for a price (or soon shot). That's the future that awaits us. So these two groups, lacking any pragmatic influence on positive agendas, can't govern. They can only veto, fume and fulminate. That's where we find ourselves. They both promise heaven on earth but can't even stop graffiti, much less a pandemic. Reality collides with these delusions and knocks followers into the same fatalistic flights of fancy that all failed charismatic cults descend into. Donald Trump becomes the Stokely Carmichael of white power and the Abbie Hoffman of the pandemic - gonna levitate that 'ronavirus with the good feelings of his mind ray. It's clear how the Confederacy keeps winding up in the same spot. It's more interesting how the Left fell into this heresy. Basically, in the '60s and '70s, Nixon destroyed the Left with targeted assassinations of Black Panther leadership, the War on Drugs, Cointelpro and other programs. The apparatus developed against democracy in Vietnam and Indonesia was reimported to "deradicalize" urban resistance to the new oil imperialist/banking oligarchy that you now see coming apart. This is why, today, we have such high incarceration rates: Jim Crow Part II. With both parties now locked down by bribery, unions getting dismantled and wages driven down, there was no room anymore for the Left outside academia and to succeed on the Left there, you had to abandon claims on material wealth and economic justice or you'd be dealt with too. Courses on Locke, Rousseau and Madison were shunted aside and restricted to graduate school - if available at all - so no uppity undergrads would ever have the gall to attack undemocratic militarism with democratic theory ever again. That forced the Left into a peculiarly sterile conversation about race and sex - not the underlying sources of injustice there that could never be questioned but rather on personal experience - to a fatalistically myopic degree. The end result of this is something called, bizarrely, Boasian antiracism . A similar defenestration of Christianity occurred on the right. It's considered "heresy" now to discuss the fact that Jesus wanted debt cancellation - when in fact the heresy is failing to point out that he did and that led to the crucifixion. Blame it all on the "Me Decade" of the '70s. Both the right and the left turned toward the personal, especially personal narrative and confessional - and new forms of communication gave them this power. Both sides fell prey to exaggerated doctrines of Deconstruction, elevating personal revelation above law, constitution and Gospel truth enabling the "will-to-power" movements common in fascism. Out went universal meaning and in swept wishy-washy relativism with "safe spaces" where nobody has to be overruled. Charismatic evangelicals (read: segregationists) substituted personal confession for Biblical truth. Witness George Zimmerman claiming it was part of God's plan he shoot an unarmed black boy walking home at night. The Right ate it up forgetting that 1) No greater love has a man than he gives up his life to save another (*not* takes another). 2) Do not be overcome by evil but rather overcome evil with good. 3) There is no fear in love. Love casts out fear. Zimmerman got out of the car that night armed with a gun because he was afraid he might die and unafraid to kill - pretty much the opposite of a Christian. But the anti-Christian charismatics ate it up in their culture war because he hated the right people. Of course, on the Left, these ironic contradictions abound too. When I heard Bruce Jenner confessing happiness at no longer having to lie to everybody, my first thought was, "He's admitting to cheating with steroids like I'm positive almost everybody in track and field at the Olympic level has been doing since the '50s?" No. My second thought was, "He's apologizing for giving people cancer and diabetes by selling us Wheaties?" Nope again. He's transgendered. Oh. How was that ever my business? What about all the people harmed by the cheating? Oh, well? In the future, we did get our fifteen minutes of fame and now we're all trapped in our own personality cults. We're one big self-published, unedited echo chamber of one. Ours is an era of personal narrative devoid of genuine readers. Reading takes kindness. Reading takes reflection and reflection is the enemy of sensationalist tweets. (Got to move those ads.) Bridging these islands of self presupposes an objective reality that can sustain us while we're "at sea" off your own island. I think Percy referred to this as the "intersubjective." But politically speaking, no man is an island. We can't be our own subjects of one, which was Madison's point. Substituting mob gangs does not give you a better form of government. We all fall prey to different heresies of perfection. Tech bros seem to think the world will become a perfect place with enough microchips thrown at it. (I've debugged too much code to believe that one.) The flip side of that is nasty too. Nostalgia is the enemy of forgiveness, which was a major theme of Percy's. Nostalgia imagines a perfect past. If the past was once perfect - or at least better - then the screwed up way things are today is unnecessary and we need no forgiveness. We just need to travel back in our memory to get there. But there's no one left showing us how fallible that memory is. Those critics disappeared in our flattened new perspective on life. We shouldn't idealize the past or despise it. Nor should we idealize the future. We should be, in our dire time of need, raging Pragmatists and radicalized moderates. Wade Riddick ------ Original Message ------ Received: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 10:43:12 AM EDT From: Ernest Hutton > To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 11 ? ?Hazel Motes (in Flannery O?Connor?s Wise Blood), searches for God by railing against organized religion. But in doing so, he prophesizes the authoritarian end-state pushed by today?s cancel culture: ?Where you come from is gone, where you thought you were going to never was there, and where you are is no good unless you can get away from it.? O?Connor had it right, and is now a victim of her own perspicacity. This reign of terror is destroying us all! Ernie Hutton Sent from my iPhone Ernest W Hutton Jr. FAICP Assoc AIA Hutton Associates Inc. New York/ Westhampton 917.836.7902 17 Woodbridge Lane, Quiogue Westhampton Beach NY 11978 >> On Aug 6, 2020, at 4:55 AM, Plemmons, Gregory > wrote: > ? > Patrick Connelly, a Percy scholar, spoke on Percy and race at one of the former Walker Percy Weekends. He commonly referenced a quote from Percy (I wish I knew the original source) about the eternal ?problem of human frailty trapped in historical circumstance?. That quote has stuck with me. It has echoes of Pompeii, especially as we seem to be entering a whole new era of cancel culture. The extreme left?s iconoclasm frightens me almost as much as that of the Knotheads. I wish people could devote more energy inward toward themselves and the current state of things. While dissecting the past will always have some merit, what are we ourselves going to be judged on, fifty years from now? Even five years from this pandemic? Percy was imperfect as the best of us, but he and his family also slept in their attic for two weeks after a bomb threat from the local Klan in 1969, after defending the removal of the Confederate flag from the principal?s office of the local high school. > > Zadie Smith took a stab recently attempting to answer the question of the purpose of fiction. ?Does it seem at all surprising in 2019...that we should have this hypersensitivity?... Whereas many more material issues?economic inequality, criminal justice reform, immigration?prove frighteningly intractable, language becomes the convenient battlefield.? > > Apologies for the long-winded rant. I read the New Yorker article. It taught me nothing new. Flannery was trapped as anyone. Her poor physical health is often overlooked. Lupus is a horrible disease and there were little options for treatment or even simple relief in her time. Again, ?historical circumstance?. I like to think if her disease hadn?t claimed her at 39, her views might have evolved, too. I guess we?ll never know. > > Gregory Plemmons, MD > >> On Aug 5, 2020, at 7:17 PM, Charles Cowherd > wrote: >> ? >> Just to weigh in on the Flannery O?Connor/ Paul Elie scrum. >> At the seminary (Episcopal) that I attended, a professor had included the short story ?The Artificial N____? in his compendium of short stories matched up to the preaching lectionary. (Flannery O?Connor fiction is VERY popular in Episcopal circles.) >> A draft copy somehow was made available to my fellow students, who opposed the inclusion. There was a big townhall meeting, a student petition, eventually the professor/author agreed to remove the story. >> This was about 3 years ago. >> I offer that up merely as another tiny data point in whatever this particular moment is all about. I know that Walker Percy spoke on that short story specifically but cannot find it, it?s in CONVERSATIONS with WALKER PECY. >> I do think that it?s a topic that we can discuss on this forum with care and concern and kindness for one another. >> Also, I have been reading THE NEW YORKER all my life (?a wonderful Yankee magazine?- my Dad always would say!). Only with this article the magazine it reveal how detached it is, as a source of journalism, from the world. It reminded me of Percy?s dislike (too soft a word?) for Descartes. Instead, Percy believed we are all embodied creatures, fallen and stumbling in the world. Whereas the New Yorker writes an article with the title: ?How Racist was Flannery O?Connor?? without any source of social location of time and place. >> All my best, >> Charles Cowherd >> [ WARNING : This email came from an external source. Please treat this message with additional caution.] >> ---------------------------------- >> * Percy-L Discussion Archives: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fpipermail%2Fpercy-l%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=XfC7cic65rm4ymcMNug%2B0i5pmKf%2BJaNoM7zlg%2FH9h%2FU%3D&reserved=0 >> >> * Manage Your Membership: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpercy-l&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=9Q3bnPoYfd2OBARKSecfmQiRP7qZKsewQN2GiBaj4t0%3D&reserved=0 >> >> * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org >> >> * Visit The Walker Percy Project: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibiblio.org%2Fwpercy&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=vrA7LTBbjJ5lMFvbs6qJWQEFInGNNbuAWzJRCZDE1HY%3D&reserved=0 > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhonda_mcdonnell at msn.com Fri Aug 7 14:44:40 2020 From: rhonda_mcdonnell at msn.com (RHONDA MCDONNELL) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 18:44:40 +0000 Subject: [percy-l] Pluralism or community? A response to Wade Riddick. In-Reply-To: <6C0E752F-2B90-4CCE-A3FD-4688B26C6DAC@gmail.com> References: , <6C0E752F-2B90-4CCE-A3FD-4688B26C6DAC@gmail.com> Message-ID: Well, yes, in response to the pandemic. But the rest ... ;-) Sent from my iPhone On Aug 7, 2020, at 2:24 PM, Karey Perkins wrote: ? According to Charles Sanders Peirce (paraphrased badly): There is a reality out there. It?s not a matter of opinion; reality exists quite separately from any human opinion. While no human has a 100% grasp on reality, some human views are more close to that real reality out there than others. Those whose views of reality most closely coincide with reality itself are most successful; those whose views deviate more from what reality actually is ? will fail. I may believe I can fly, but if I jump off of tall buildings in order to practice that belief, it won?t bode well for me. If I believe in gravity, I?ll not be jumping out of buildings. I?ll fare far better than my compatriot who IS jumping off of buildings. That?s pragmaticism. We as humans have a profound responsibility to seek the truth and propagate the truth ? not as an abstraction, but as a flesh-and blood physical reality. Because dying in a pandemic is a flesh and blood reality. Being unemployed (by some estimates, 47.2% of Americans) and evicted from your home is a flesh and blood reality with real physical consequences. This is no longer about abstracted religious ?belief? or political ?belief.? This is not about silly political arguments. This is life and death. This is not an abstraction for hundreds of thousands of Americans. Karey Karey Perkins, M.A., M.A.T., Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of English 296A Turner Hall, South Carolina State University Orangeburg, SC 29117 kperkin1 at scsu.edu | 803-536-7016 www.scsu.edu Member, Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-0002 kareperk at ttu.edu | http://www.pragmaticism.net On Aug 7, 2020, at 1:31 PM, RHONDA MCDONNELL > wrote: In just the last few posts, where we see some polarization, I am reminded of Tom More reflecting on the arguments among his fellow prisoners in THE THANATOS SYNDROME ? can?t help but smile. Wishing y?all well, Rhonda Sent from my iPhone On Aug 7, 2020, at 6:36 AM, janetcantor37--- via Percy-L > wrote: ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kareyperkins at gmail.com Fri Aug 7 20:15:43 2020 From: kareyperkins at gmail.com (Karey Perkins) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 20:15:43 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] Pluralism or community? A response to Wade Riddick. In-Reply-To: References: <6C0E752F-2B90-4CCE-A3FD-4688B26C6DAC@gmail.com> Message-ID: <434A3AC1-309C-44DB-A2CA-F66F23060B17@gmail.com> America?s horrendous and failed response to the pandemic, worse than any other country in the entire world, developed and developing, making America ?first? at being ?worst,? (is this Making America Great Again?), is entirely and totally due to "the rest? ? the incompetence and corruption of our political leaders. America?s failure at handling the pandemic is not an accident, but due to decades of dismantling of our democracy, culminating in the present particularly incompetent and corrupt administration. Cause and effect. It?s basic science, as Peirce would say. Pragmaticism. THAT is worth talking about. "Speak out," as the poem says. Read and learn: https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/07/inside-the-us-pandemic-incompetence-it-starts-at-the-top/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/09/coronavirus-american-failure/614191/ https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006740 Karey Perkins, M.A., M.A.T., Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of English 296A Turner Hall, South Carolina State University Orangeburg, SC 29117 kperkin1 at scsu.edu | 803-536-7016 www.scsu.edu Member, Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-0002 kareperk at ttu.edu | http://www.pragmaticism.net > On Aug 7, 2020, at 2:44 PM, RHONDA MCDONNELL wrote: > > Well, yes, in response to the pandemic. But the rest ... ;-) > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Aug 7, 2020, at 2:24 PM, Karey Perkins wrote: >> >> ? According to Charles Sanders Peirce (paraphrased badly): >> >> There is a reality out there. It?s not a matter of opinion; reality exists quite separately from any human opinion. While no human has a 100% grasp on reality, some human views are more close to that real reality out there than others. Those whose views of reality most closely coincide with reality itself are most successful; those whose views deviate more from what reality actually is ? will fail. >> >> I may believe I can fly, but if I jump off of tall buildings in order to practice that belief, it won?t bode well for me. >> >> If I believe in gravity, I?ll not be jumping out of buildings. I?ll fare far better than my compatriot who IS jumping off of buildings. >> >> That?s pragmaticism. >> >> We as humans have a profound responsibility to seek the truth and propagate the truth ? not as an abstraction, but as a flesh-and blood physical reality. >> >> Because dying in a pandemic is a flesh and blood reality. Being unemployed (by some estimates, 47.2% of Americans) and evicted from your home is a flesh and blood reality with real physical consequences. >> >> This is no longer about abstracted religious ?belief? or political ?belief.? This is not about silly political arguments. This is life and death. >> >> This is not an abstraction for hundreds of thousands of Americans. >> >> Karey >> >> >> Karey Perkins, M.A., M.A.T., Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor, Department of English >> 296A Turner Hall, South Carolina State University >> Orangeburg, SC 29117 >> kperkin1 at scsu.edu | 803-536-7016 >> www.scsu.edu >> Member, Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism >> Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-0002 >> kareperk at ttu.edu | http://www.pragmaticism.net >> >> >> >> >>> On Aug 7, 2020, at 1:31 PM, RHONDA MCDONNELL > wrote: >>> >>> In just the last few posts, where we see some polarization, I am reminded of Tom More reflecting on the arguments among his fellow prisoners in THE THANATOS SYNDROME ? can?t help but smile. >>> >>> Wishing y?all well, >>> >>> Rhonda >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Aug 7, 2020, at 6:36 AM, janetcantor37--- via Percy-L > wrote: >>>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------- >>> * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ >>> >>> * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l >>> >>> * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org >>> >>> * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy >> >> >> ---------------------------------- >> * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ >> >> * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l >> >> * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org >> >> * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kterrell at stokeswagner.com Fri Aug 7 20:22:42 2020 From: kterrell at stokeswagner.com (Karl M. Terrell) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 00:22:42 +0000 Subject: [percy-l] A response to Janet Cantor In-Reply-To: <24E5ACAA-FD6F-4F62-AE40-23921DBF1188@gmail.com> References: <922yHgHSu9968Set.1596786320@web13.cms.usa.net> <1641287727.1090464.1596796593547@mail.yahoo.com>, <24E5ACAA-FD6F-4F62-AE40-23921DBF1188@gmail.com> Message-ID: <65A7D392-A2E3-452B-9187-079E36316EA2@stokeswagner.com> Well said, Karey. To your first point, the equivocation fallacy ? that Civil War & Reconstruction-era Republicans are not the same as the GOP of today ? it should be pointed out also that the ardent segregationists in the Democratic Party were almost exclusively Southern. In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran for President as a Dixiecrat, and then after 1964 he became a Republican. The rest of the Southern Democrats followed him out the door. This was an act of shameful protest in response to the passages of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 1965 and 1968. These newly minted Republicans then joined forces with the Goldwater / Nixon (Southern Strategy) / Reagan wing of the GOP. From that point forward, we witnessed the steady destruction of the moderate wing of the GOP (Rockefeller, Lodge, Ford and others). This leads me to respond to another erroneous point by Ms. Cantor: ?Tax cuts were never designed to drive up the deficit, but to spur growth of the economy which would bring more money into government, not less. When JFK passed his tax cuts, the economy got a big push and the government made more money.? Sorry, but ... this is just flat wrong (apart from her comment about JFK, addressed below). Two points: (1) I am sure Ms. Cantor is familiar with Grover Norquist, the influential architect & firebrand of GOP tax strategy. His mantra ? his guiding principle ? was ?starve the beast.? The promoted idea was smaller government, passed off as a bromide, but what really was afoot was an attack on the legitimacy of government. This attack was perfected by Reagan, who famously quipped the so-called ?most terrifying words? are (paraphrasing) ?I?m here from the government to help you.? In saying this, Reagan was playing crudely off the simplistic notion that government operations are perceived (generally) as not as efficient or as effective as for-profit businesses ? a fair enough observation, but one that wholly misses the point of the proper role that government, in fact, must play, if we are to have a just society that provides for all. It was all a front. The clear intent was to enrich the fat cats, and to undermine the social progress which had been set in motion by the Civil Rights Acts that the GOP Southerners despised, and that were perceived by the fat cats as too expensive. The end result, over the last 4 decades, has been wage stagnation and the near-virtual destruction of the middle class (as constructed in the 1950s). The resulting wealth inequality is staggering, and offensive. (2) So-called ?trickle-down economics? have been proven time and time again to be a failure. Yes, JFK?s tax cuts ? from the Eisenhower era of very high taxes ? benefitted the economy, and so did Reagan?s. But, regarding the latter, what current Republicans always ignore is the fact that Reagan subsequently raised taxes several times. The GOP, instead, has simply turned ?tax cuts? into an unthinking religion. Trump?s tax cut perhaps provided a brief sugar high for the economy, but his tax cut never delivered on the selling point ? that it would lead to job creation and better wages. There is simply no evidence of this. Yes, the economy grew from 2017 until the pandemic, but this growth (apart from the afore-mentioned ?sugar high?) was simply a continuation of the corrections made by the Obama administration to the failed economy of G.W. Bush. Obama?s improvements to the economy took clear hold in 2011 ? six years before Trump took office! The Trump tax cut simply enabled the big corporations to go on a binge of stock buybacks, and the uber-wealthy pocketed their windfall. The rich got rich and the poor ? maybe they didn?t get poorer between 2017 and 2020 ? but, to be sure, there were no advances in opportunity, nor any advances over the sad reality that huge numbers in this country live two paychecks away from bankruptcy. And stop calling the American left ?Marxists.? It?s just plain stupid to do so. The American economy has long been a mix of both capitalism and socialism, with capitalism plainly dominant ? and this will remain the case. Progressives are simply calling for a heavier thumb on the socialism side of the scale. This is necessary, and a clear majority of Americans agree ? on an issue-by-issue basis, as polls consistently show ? in order to correct the current injustices in our economy, and the current absence of opportunity for the betterment of vast numbers of Americans. The chickens are coming home to roost, Ms. Cantor. **** I recognize this has little to do with Percy ?as least not directly. That said, Ms. Cantor chose this forum for the spewing of her uninformed opinions. Inasmuch as she chose to swim here, she should not be surprised that critical thinkers will provide a swift counter current. Karl Montague Terrell Brevard, N.C. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 7, 2020, at 1:42 PM, Karey Perkins wrote: ? First of all, thank you once again, Wade, for your brilliant and comprehensive analysis of what?s going on. Each of your paragraphs could be expanded into an entire essay in and of itself. I?d like to respond but the scope of your topics and analysis make it so overwhelming that I just will say, kudos to you. Janet, there is much to respond to in what you wrote, but overall, you are very misinformed. Your facts are just plain incorrect. I cannot address every single point, so I will only address just three of your erroneous points, in order to make my point about your misinformation. I will also refer you to links that will help you to become more factually and correctly informed. #1, the Equivocation Fallacy: Republicans of the 1800s have absolutely nothing to do with the Republicans of today. That the past and the present Republican party bears the same name indicates absolutely nothing about its content nor its character nor its policies. To wit: The parties switched sides in the early 1900s. The Republican Party today foments and campaigns on racist policies and practices against both black and brown people, to the point that it has innocent children in concentration camps at the border, in horrific, inhumane conditions, more concerned about tracking raped girls periods to prevent them from having abortions than providing basic hygiene or tracking their parents to reunite families. (That?s just one example; there are literally hundreds of thousands more.). As for the early twentieth century switch and why, I?ll just leave a couple of links here to educate you as to the general historical background of the switch; there are far more out there for you to read if you?d like to pursue this research: * https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html * https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south * https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a26985261/trump-administration-abortion-period-tracking-migrant-women/ #2, the Koch brothers decades-long stealth takeover of the United States government: Read Jane Mayers' Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires behind the Rise of the Radical Right. * https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/books/review/dark-money-by-jane-mayer.html * https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south #3, that BLM, antifa, and other leftist protesters are inciting violence: Almost all of the protests are peaceful demonstrators exercising their first amendment rights. Nor are these groups in any way at all ?anarchist? - they just don?t like the fascism and racism that is rising in our country. Antifa literally refers to being ?anti-fascist? and is ?a moniker, not a single group with an organizational structure or leader.? It is an adjective, not a noun. Right wing social media and right wing media are propagating the myth that these are groups are violent, yet evidence shows that white nationalists and opportunists have infiltrated the protests to instigate violence. Trump's failures on the economy and the pandemic has caused him to move to campaign as the ?law and order? president, but this too is failing as his ?secret police? (for example in Portland, where federal agents were unmarked and unnamed) are attacking and hooding and capturing unarmed peaceful protesters, pulling them into unmarked vans, and the federal agents are the ones causing the violence themselves, against moms and Catholics. (They?ve since been driven out of Portland, and guess what? No more violence.). These feds are just another photo op for Trump, akin to his tear gassing peaceful protesters in order to walk across the street and raise a Bible (which I doubt Mr. Two Corinthians has ever opened) upside down outside of the Episcopal church in front of the White House. * https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/who-caused-violence-protests-its-not-antifa/ * https://www.voanews.com/usa/four-extremist-groups-suspected-involvement-protest-violence * https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-the-law-and-order-candidate-thats-a-laugh/2020/07/14/17037e86-c610-11ea-b037-f9711f89ee46_story.html * https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/508597-the-memo-trump-struggles-to-get-traction-with-law-and-order-message * https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/trump-getting-what-he-wants-portland/614635/ Your gross misinformation is because of the what?s happened to the media today ? which was supposed to be the fourth estate, part of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches? checks and balances on each other ? but has failed miserably at its job ever since the FCC Fairness Doctrine was repealed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#:~:text=The%20fairness%20doctrine%20of%20the,honest%2C%20equitable%2C%20and%20balanced. Because of that, news outlets of any source - TV, newspapers, magazines, internet ? can report anything they want. So we now have two completely different realities, and half of American live in one reality conveyed by one side of the aisle, while the other half lives in an entirely different reality conveyed by a different side of the aisle. Oh, wait, who said, fifty years ago, that that would happen? It has never been more important that Americans today have to be critical thinkers to evaluate news sources and information they come across to find out what the truth really is. But critical thinking and civics classes no longer exist in our high schools, so few Americans have any idea how to evaluate the media. Hence the great divide that Percy writes about - not just two sets of attitudes about the same set of facts, but completely different sets of facts, completely different realities entirely. My hope is that you will find better, more accurate sources, and become a better critical thinker concerning the constant bombardment of lies and misinformation that propagate in America. As for Lauren?s poem, I have another poem (there are many versions, here?s just one): First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me America is in a crisis. Percy would not have been quiet, and he wasn?t. He spoke out in his novels, even before this happened. Karey Karey Perkins, M.A., M.A.T., Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of English 296A Turner Hall, South Carolina State University Orangeburg, SC 29117 kperkin1 at scsu.edu | 803-536-7016 www.scsu.edu Member, Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-0002 kareperk at ttu.edu | http://www.pragmaticism.net On Aug 7, 2020, at 6:36 AM, janetcantor37--- via Percy-L > wrote: You opened so well. Federalist #10 is my favorite of the Federalist Papers. Then you fell into conclusions that do not match mine. I agree that pluralism as you describe it - belief in the ascendancy of our attachment to factions instead of love of the whole, patriotism, love of country - is not good. The trouble is when I look up the definition of pluralism, it is the opposite of how you describe it. So I am going to tell you how I read #10: Our country needed a strong central symbol, the flag, a president, so that our individual interests (factions) could never get big enough to disrupt or bring down the whole. If we wanted to be a "country", able to defend itself against outside mischief from other countries, we had to be unified. Pluralism entailed allowing individuals as well as states and individual interests to be protected from meddling or destruction, as long as those individuals did not break the country's laws. The colonies were worried that they had just left the King and wanted no parts of a president. So #10 tried to explain all about the protections we would put in place so individual interests and minorities would not fall prey to a new kind of tyranny. They would put in place protections of each state by having representations in a Senate where every colony - eventually state - would get the same representation no matter how small it was compared to the others. They would put in place a Court to interpret the law. And the constant tension among all of these entities would prevent a president from having too much power and individuals or groups with they interest from inciting confusions to bring down the whole, the U.S. The central power in the hands of a president having to contend with these safeguards against its controlling all the power would help keep all individual Americans safe. The larger the country, the more diverse the separate states, the more difficult it would be for a dictatorship to arise. The colonies became convinced and stopped fearing having a president. Again, you were doing so well, It is true that leftists of recent history love chopping us up into groups with grievances so they can better control us. Where you went astray is when you began describing the "seething resentment " of the right and its origins. There is no resentment in Republicans and other rightists here from having Civil Rights legislation shoved down "their throats". It was the Republicans throughout our history who instigated and helped bring about the end of slavery against the Democrats. It was the right which fought for integration. The KKK, those who fought to preserve slavery and prevent integration of schools were always in the Democrat Party. LBJ got lots of attention when he passed the Civil Rights act, but without the votes of Republicans in Congress, it would never have come to fruition. Tax cuts were never designed to drive up the deficit, but to spur growth of the economy which would bring more money into government, not less. When JFK passed his tax cuts, the economy got a big push and the government made more money. Yes, both sides promise heaven on earth. But if you look at the history from 1976 until today it is a series of democrats pulling the country away from capitalism and Republicans correcting their mistakes and fixing the country and then the sliding again when democrats win again. Taking power away from the central government to give us goodies or manage things is a good thing. Reagan fixed Carter's disastrous economy. Under Clinton we were headed back to catastrophe again until the 1994 Republican congress came in and fixed everything again, and then Clinton took credit for it, and that's okay, because at least he didn't get in the way. And I don't want to ruffle feathers, but recently the pattern began again. And until the plague hit us, we were coasting along in the best economy ever. Too much federal spending is terrible, I agree and both sides are guilty of that. Dismantling private property protection is lethally bad. We agree there. Oligarchs stealing from private citizens is a disease, yes. Taking power from individuals is dangerous. But we get more of these bad things every time we elect Democrats and this time the contrast couldn't be starker. I don't know about the Koch Brothers, but George Soros and the teachers unions have them beat when it comes to stealing power from individuals and placing it in the hands of government operators. Wages were going up, unemployment was virtually disappearing, and minorities of all kinds benefitted from these things the most. And then the pandemic struck and we were told were have to close down the economy. If this hadn't happened, we would have been in excellent economic shape. The chaos of now is a left wing phenomenon. These destructive mobs are avowed Marxists by their own definition. the graffiti and bringing down of statues and buildings and chaos and murder is all a left wing phenomenon these days - and BTW, occurring in cities run by progressive democrats. As for the left abandoning claims on material wealth and economic justice, where do you see that? It is in the Democrat party where you find the most rich who came into government with modest savings and left multi millionaires. Hillsdale College, which I would describe as closer to conservatism than liberalism as defined these days, does not deconstruct, does not elevate personal revelation above law or enable will to power movement. Hillsdale encourages individual responsibility. Lovers of safe spaces where nobody has to be overruled is a leftist phenomenon. Where are you finding in your George Zimmerman narrative that those three points you name are being forgotten by the Right? I call myself a rightist and those points seem just fine to me. Look how easy it is for two sides to see the same facts and come to completely different readings of what is going on. Of course, the big question is what would Percy make of it all these days? I am guessing he would hate what anarchist Marxists are doing to our cities, and attempting to do to our history, and our culture. We all should. I know that Percy would despair that things are not better. And I suspect he might find it very difficult to write those crazy fun house novels of his with their gorgeous endings. I suggest that each of us should settle down and set aside time to read the beautiful book by Wilfred McClay, Land of Hope. It clears up a lot of the confusion between Wade Riddick and me. And, borrowing from Ariel in The Tempest, it is so inspiring, it will make any reader cry if he is human. Janet Cantor On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:47 AM, Wade Riddick > wrote: What many people fail to understand is that both the Knotheads and the NOT-heads (i.e., "cancel culture") spring from the same toxic stew of sins: pluralism. Pluralism is the belief that we have rights not as citizens of countries but through the groups we belong to - race, gender, etc. The pluralists think democracy is useless and unless we bind together into our "group" we can't be represented. Leaving the group for another or disagreeing with your assigned "interest" is the deepest betrayal and provokes a backlash imminently Freudian in its ferocity. I haven't seen anything like it since I argued with the Communist Party cult remnants in graduate school about the value of money. They don't accept that "interests" cut across these boundaries. They don't want to see, for instance, that women have an interest in men graduating from college so they can have marriageable mates. They're an extension of the Zuckerberg computerization of our lives that wants to chop us up into interests so they can monetize us when we connect that way. NOT-heads aren't "almost angry" at the Constitution; they're in outright contempt of it because the founders were explicitly against this form of thinking. In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison warns that giving organized groups of people the same rights as actual individual citizens will destroy real rights for those citizens and enable factionalism. This type of group behavior has to be controlled or it will destroy the community of democracy. The knotheads are simply a different side of that tribalism - the Confederacy tribe. This other great enemy of democracy has been engaged in its own long war against federalism going back to the days of the first Confederacy. The anger you see on the "right" is seething resentment from having civil rights legislation shoved down their throats. Since the '70s, the Republican Party has been fueled by vendetta Dixiecrats fishing for ways to make the Federal government fail - first with Nixon's failed budget impoundment, then with tax cuts they hoped would drive up the deficit so high one day they could use it as an excuse to gut spending. ("We're finally bankrupt. Yay!") But every escalating disaster caused by their sabotage of government action - 9/11, credit default swap implosions, Hurricane Katerina, S&L crises - only increased demand for government action - because, as you see today, there's no other central actor in America that can handle crises of this magnitude. These two sides resemble one another because racism - tribal revenge - is a communicable disease, quickly mutualizing contempt when unchecked. Social media has brought us into one another's lives like never before and many of us can't stand what we see. (Maybe better digital fences would make better digital neighbors.) Contempt breeds contempt and without tolerance for one another, democratic compromise is impossible and we can't govern ourselves - which suits the short-term interests of the oligarchs just fine. They need to dismantle property protections (i.e., the justice system), if they're going to steal from us. What does this have to do with anything? When you leave groups on their own to organize, those with the most money oraganize the best. Sick people are probably the most important group in the country because when you become sick, you lose your autonomy and become dependent upon others. Sick people also have the least influence on the political system because all our time and money is tied up in being sick. Ditto for groups like the poor and unemployed - because you need resources to organize yourselves. Some interests can't organize themselves like this. That's the function of government - to organize and address the concerns of all citizens. What the NOT-heads fail to acknowledge is that their attitudes towards politics benefit the very oligarchs paying for us to hate each other. The insidious idea underlying pluralism is that these groups somehow "compete" with one another for "influence" over the government. That is, they bribe officials. This is what I mean when I say a coup took place at the Supreme Court level in the 1970s when unelected judges equated bribery of politicians with "free speech." If you want to see what the Koch Brother's perfect market in politics looks like, go visit Mexico today where every official is available for a price (or soon shot). That's the future that awaits us. So these two groups, lacking any pragmatic influence on positive agendas, can't govern. They can only veto, fume and fulminate. That's where we find ourselves. They both promise heaven on earth but can't even stop graffiti, much less a pandemic. Reality collides with these delusions and knocks followers into the same fatalistic flights of fancy that all failed charismatic cults descend into. Donald Trump becomes the Stokely Carmichael of white power and the Abbie Hoffman of the pandemic - gonna levitate that 'ronavirus with the good feelings of his mind ray. It's clear how the Confederacy keeps winding up in the same spot. It's more interesting how the Left fell into this heresy. Basically, in the '60s and '70s, Nixon destroyed the Left with targeted assassinations of Black Panther leadership, the War on Drugs, Cointelpro and other programs. The apparatus developed against democracy in Vietnam and Indonesia was reimported to "deradicalize" urban resistance to the new oil imperialist/banking oligarchy that you now see coming apart. This is why, today, we have such high incarceration rates: Jim Crow Part II. With both parties now locked down by bribery, unions getting dismantled and wages driven down, there was no room anymore for the Left outside academia and to succeed on the Left there, you had to abandon claims on material wealth and economic justice or you'd be dealt with too. Courses on Locke, Rousseau and Madison were shunted aside and restricted to graduate school - if available at all - so no uppity undergrads would ever have the gall to attack undemocratic militarism with democratic theory ever again. That forced the Left into a peculiarly sterile conversation about race and sex - not the underlying sources of injustice there that could never be questioned but rather on personal experience - to a fatalistically myopic degree. The end result of this is something called, bizarrely, Boasian antiracism . A similar defenestration of Christianity occurred on the right. It's considered "heresy" now to discuss the fact that Jesus wanted debt cancellation - when in fact the heresy is failing to point out that he did and that led to the crucifixion. Blame it all on the "Me Decade" of the '70s. Both the right and the left turned toward the personal, especially personal narrative and confessional - and new forms of communication gave them this power. Both sides fell prey to exaggerated doctrines of Deconstruction, elevating personal revelation above law, constitution and Gospel truth enabling the "will-to-power" movements common in fascism. Out went universal meaning and in swept wishy-washy relativism with "safe spaces" where nobody has to be overruled. Charismatic evangelicals (read: segregationists) substituted personal confession for Biblical truth. Witness George Zimmerman claiming it was part of God's plan he shoot an unarmed black boy walking home at night. The Right ate it up forgetting that 1) No greater love has a man than he gives up his life to save another (*not* takes another). 2) Do not be overcome by evil but rather overcome evil with good. 3) There is no fear in love. Love casts out fear. Zimmerman got out of the car that night armed with a gun because he was afraid he might die and unafraid to kill - pretty much the opposite of a Christian. But the anti-Christian charismatics ate it up in their culture war because he hated the right people. Of course, on the Left, these ironic contradictions abound too. When I heard Bruce Jenner confessing happiness at no longer having to lie to everybody, my first thought was, "He's admitting to cheating with steroids like I'm positive almost everybody in track and field at the Olympic level has been doing since the '50s?" No. My second thought was, "He's apologizing for giving people cancer and diabetes by selling us Wheaties?" Nope again. He's transgendered. Oh. How was that ever my business? What about all the people harmed by the cheating? Oh, well? In the future, we did get our fifteen minutes of fame and now we're all trapped in our own personality cults. We're one big self-published, unedited echo chamber of one. Ours is an era of personal narrative devoid of genuine readers. Reading takes kindness. Reading takes reflection and reflection is the enemy of sensationalist tweets. (Got to move those ads.) Bridging these islands of self presupposes an objective reality that can sustain us while we're "at sea" off your own island. I think Percy referred to this as the "intersubjective." But politically speaking, no man is an island. We can't be our own subjects of one, which was Madison's point. Substituting mob gangs does not give you a better form of government. We all fall prey to different heresies of perfection. Tech bros seem to think the world will become a perfect place with enough microchips thrown at it. (I've debugged too much code to believe that one.) The flip side of that is nasty too. Nostalgia is the enemy of forgiveness, which was a major theme of Percy's. Nostalgia imagines a perfect past. If the past was once perfect - or at least better - then the screwed up way things are today is unnecessary and we need no forgiveness. We just need to travel back in our memory to get there. But there's no one left showing us how fallible that memory is. Those critics disappeared in our flattened new perspective on life. We shouldn't idealize the past or despise it. Nor should we idealize the future. We should be, in our dire time of need, raging Pragmatists and radicalized moderates. Wade Riddick ------ Original Message ------ Received: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 10:43:12 AM EDT From: Ernest Hutton > To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 11 ? ?Hazel Motes (in Flannery O?Connor?s Wise Blood), searches for God by railing against organized religion. But in doing so, he prophesizes the authoritarian end-state pushed by today?s cancel culture: ?Where you come from is gone, where you thought you were going to never was there, and where you are is no good unless you can get away from it.? O?Connor had it right, and is now a victim of her own perspicacity. This reign of terror is destroying us all! Ernie Hutton Sent from my iPhone Ernest W Hutton Jr. FAICP Assoc AIA Hutton Associates Inc. New York/ Westhampton 917.836.7902 17 Woodbridge Lane, Quiogue Westhampton Beach NY 11978 >> On Aug 6, 2020, at 4:55 AM, Plemmons, Gregory > wrote: > ? > Patrick Connelly, a Percy scholar, spoke on Percy and race at one of the former Walker Percy Weekends. He commonly referenced a quote from Percy (I wish I knew the original source) about the eternal ?problem of human frailty trapped in historical circumstance?. That quote has stuck with me. It has echoes of Pompeii, especially as we seem to be entering a whole new era of cancel culture. The extreme left?s iconoclasm frightens me almost as much as that of the Knotheads. I wish people could devote more energy inward toward themselves and the current state of things. While dissecting the past will always have some merit, what are we ourselves going to be judged on, fifty years from now? Even five years from this pandemic? Percy was imperfect as the best of us, but he and his family also slept in their attic for two weeks after a bomb threat from the local Klan in 1969, after defending the removal of the Confederate flag from the principal?s office of the local high school. > > Zadie Smith took a stab recently attempting to answer the question of the purpose of fiction. ?Does it seem at all surprising in 2019...that we should have this hypersensitivity?... Whereas many more material issues?economic inequality, criminal justice reform, immigration?prove frighteningly intractable, language becomes the convenient battlefield.? > > Apologies for the long-winded rant. I read the New Yorker article. It taught me nothing new. Flannery was trapped as anyone. Her poor physical health is often overlooked. Lupus is a horrible disease and there were little options for treatment or even simple relief in her time. Again, ?historical circumstance?. I like to think if her disease hadn?t claimed her at 39, her views might have evolved, too. I guess we?ll never know. > > Gregory Plemmons, MD > >> On Aug 5, 2020, at 7:17 PM, Charles Cowherd > wrote: >> ? >> Just to weigh in on the Flannery O?Connor/ Paul Elie scrum. >> At the seminary (Episcopal) that I attended, a professor had included the short story ?The Artificial N____? in his compendium of short stories matched up to the preaching lectionary. (Flannery O?Connor fiction is VERY popular in Episcopal circles.) >> A draft copy somehow was made available to my fellow students, who opposed the inclusion. There was a big townhall meeting, a student petition, eventually the professor/author agreed to remove the story. >> This was about 3 years ago. >> I offer that up merely as another tiny data point in whatever this particular moment is all about. I know that Walker Percy spoke on that short story specifically but cannot find it, it?s in CONVERSATIONS with WALKER PECY. >> I do think that it?s a topic that we can discuss on this forum with care and concern and kindness for one another. >> Also, I have been reading THE NEW YORKER all my life (?a wonderful Yankee magazine?- my Dad always would say!). Only with this article the magazine it reveal how detached it is, as a source of journalism, from the world. It reminded me of Percy?s dislike (too soft a word?) for Descartes. Instead, Percy believed we are all embodied creatures, fallen and stumbling in the world. Whereas the New Yorker writes an article with the title: ?How Racist was Flannery O?Connor?? without any source of social location of time and place. >> All my best, >> Charles Cowherd >> [ WARNING : This email came from an external source. Please treat this message with additional caution.] >> ---------------------------------- >> * Percy-L Discussion Archives: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fpipermail%2Fpercy-l%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=XfC7cic65rm4ymcMNug%2B0i5pmKf%2BJaNoM7zlg%2FH9h%2FU%3D&reserved=0 >> >> * Manage Your Membership: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpercy-l&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=9Q3bnPoYfd2OBARKSecfmQiRP7qZKsewQN2GiBaj4t0%3D&reserved=0 >> >> * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org >> >> * Visit The Walker Percy Project: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibiblio.org%2Fwpercy&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=vrA7LTBbjJ5lMFvbs6qJWQEFInGNNbuAWzJRCZDE1HY%3D&reserved=0 > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephenholmgren at me.com Fri Aug 7 22:16:35 2020 From: stephenholmgren at me.com (Stephen Holmgren) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 22:16:35 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 21 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54D872BC-7DC6-449D-9007-AE35DE201F38@me.com> Hi: I thought this conversation medium was provided for opportunities to share reflection on Walker Percy?s writing and thought. The recent digressions into contemporary and or recent historical political observations and commentary are not helpful nor are they insightful. Let?s focus on Percy?s vision and work, and not on extraneous ?stuff? that is more likely to lead to argument (in the contemporary popular sense of combatting expressions of animus), rather than reasoned engagement with one another. Yes, there are a lot of bad ?thems? out there. We know less about ?them' than we do the bad ?me/us? that we are. And about that, Percy seemed to be most attentive and discerning. Thanks for the opportunity to participate in the continuing conversation here. Stephen Stephen Holmgren stephenholmgren at me.com blog: www.towardbeauty.org book: Ethics After Easter > On Aug 7, 2020, at 9:56 PM, percy-l-request at lists.ibiblio.org wrote: > > Send Percy-L mailing list submissions to > percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > percy-l-request at lists.ibiblio.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > percy-l-owner at lists.ibiblio.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Percy-L digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: A response to Janet Cantor (Karl M. Terrell) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 00:22:42 +0000 > From: "Karl M. Terrell" > To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > > Subject: Re: [percy-l] A response to Janet Cantor > Message-ID: <65A7D392-A2E3-452B-9187-079E36316EA2 at stokeswagner.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > Well said, Karey. To your first point, the equivocation fallacy ? that Civil War & Reconstruction-era Republicans are not the same as the GOP of today ? it should be pointed out also that the ardent segregationists in the Democratic Party were almost exclusively Southern. In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran for President as a Dixiecrat, and then after 1964 he became a Republican. The rest of the Southern Democrats followed him out the door. This was an act of shameful protest in response to the passages of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 1965 and 1968. > > These newly minted Republicans then joined forces with the Goldwater / Nixon (Southern Strategy) / Reagan wing of the GOP. From that point forward, we witnessed the steady destruction of the moderate wing of the GOP (Rockefeller, Lodge, Ford and others). > > This leads me to respond to another erroneous point by Ms. Cantor: > > ?Tax cuts were never designed to drive up the deficit, but to spur growth of the economy which would bring more money into government, not less. When JFK passed his tax cuts, the economy got a big push and the government made more money.? > > Sorry, but ... this is just flat wrong (apart from her comment about JFK, addressed below). Two points: > > (1) I am sure Ms. Cantor is familiar with Grover Norquist, the influential architect & firebrand of GOP tax strategy. His mantra ? his guiding principle ? was ?starve the beast.? The promoted idea was smaller government, passed off as a bromide, but what really was afoot was an attack on the legitimacy of government. This attack was perfected by Reagan, who famously quipped the so-called ?most terrifying words? are (paraphrasing) ?I?m here from the government to help you.? In saying this, Reagan was playing crudely off the simplistic notion that government operations are perceived (generally) as not as efficient or as effective as for-profit businesses ? a fair enough observation, but one that wholly misses the point of the proper role that government, in fact, must play, if we are to have a just society that provides for all. > > It was all a front. The clear intent was to enrich the fat cats, and to undermine the social progress which had been set in motion by the Civil Rights Acts that the GOP Southerners despised, and that were perceived by the fat cats as too expensive. The end result, over the last 4 decades, has been wage stagnation and the near-virtual destruction of the middle class (as constructed in the 1950s). The resulting wealth inequality is staggering, and offensive. > > (2) So-called ?trickle-down economics? have been proven time and time again to be a failure. Yes, JFK?s tax cuts ? from the Eisenhower era of very high taxes ? benefitted the economy, and so did Reagan?s. But, regarding the latter, what current Republicans always ignore is the fact that Reagan subsequently raised taxes several times. The GOP, instead, has simply turned ?tax cuts? into an unthinking religion. > > Trump?s tax cut perhaps provided a brief sugar high for the economy, but his tax cut never delivered on the selling point ? that it would lead to job creation and better wages. There is simply no evidence of this. > > Yes, the economy grew from 2017 until the pandemic, but this growth (apart from the afore-mentioned ?sugar high?) was simply a continuation of the corrections made by the Obama administration to the failed economy of G.W. Bush. Obama?s improvements to the economy took clear hold in 2011 ? six years before Trump took office! > > The Trump tax cut simply enabled the big corporations to go on a binge of stock buybacks, and the uber-wealthy pocketed their windfall. The rich got rich and the poor ? maybe they didn?t get poorer between 2017 and 2020 ? but, to be sure, there were no advances in opportunity, nor any advances over the sad reality that huge numbers in this country live two paychecks away from bankruptcy. > > And stop calling the American left ?Marxists.? It?s just plain stupid to do so. > > The American economy has long been a mix of both capitalism and socialism, with capitalism plainly dominant ? and this will remain the case. Progressives are simply calling for a heavier thumb on the socialism side of the scale. This is necessary, and a clear majority of Americans agree ? on an issue-by-issue basis, as polls consistently show ? in order to correct the current injustices in our economy, and the current absence of opportunity for the betterment of vast numbers of Americans. > > The chickens are coming home to roost, Ms. Cantor. > > **** > > I recognize this has little to do with Percy ?as least not directly. That said, Ms. Cantor chose this forum for the spewing of her uninformed opinions. Inasmuch as she chose to swim here, she should not be surprised that critical thinkers will provide a swift counter current. > > Karl Montague Terrell > Brevard, N.C. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 7, 2020, at 1:42 PM, Karey Perkins wrote: > > ? First of all, thank you once again, Wade, for your brilliant and comprehensive analysis of what?s going on. Each of your paragraphs could be expanded into an entire essay in and of itself. I?d like to respond but the scope of your topics and analysis make it so overwhelming that I just will say, kudos to you. > > Janet, there is much to respond to in what you wrote, but overall, you are very misinformed. Your facts are just plain incorrect. I cannot address every single point, so I will only address just three of your erroneous points, in order to make my point about your misinformation. I will also refer you to links that will help you to become more factually and correctly informed. > > #1, the Equivocation Fallacy: Republicans of the 1800s have absolutely nothing to do with the Republicans of today. That the past and the present Republican party bears the same name indicates absolutely nothing about its content nor its character nor its policies. To wit: The parties switched sides in the early 1900s. The Republican Party today foments and campaigns on racist policies and practices against both black and brown people, to the point that it has innocent children in concentration camps at the border, in horrific, inhumane conditions, more concerned about tracking raped girls periods to prevent them from having abortions than providing basic hygiene or tracking their parents to reunite families. (That?s just one example; there are literally hundreds of thousands more.). As for the early twentieth century switch and why, I?ll just leave a couple of links here to educate you as to the general historical background of the switch; there are far more out there for you t > o read if you?d like to pursue this research: > > * https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html > * https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south > * https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a26985261/trump-administration-abortion-period-tracking-migrant-women/ > > #2, the Koch brothers decades-long stealth takeover of the United States government: Read Jane Mayers' Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires behind the Rise of the Radical Right. > > * https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/books/review/dark-money-by-jane-mayer.html > * https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south > > #3, that BLM, antifa, and other leftist protesters are inciting violence: Almost all of the protests are peaceful demonstrators exercising their first amendment rights. Nor are these groups in any way at all ?anarchist? - they just don?t like the fascism and racism that is rising in our country. Antifa literally refers to being ?anti-fascist? and is ?a moniker, not a single group with an organizational structure or leader.? It is an adjective, not a noun. Right wing social media and right wing media are propagating the myth that these are groups are violent, yet evidence shows that white nationalists and opportunists have infiltrated the protests to instigate violence. Trump's failures on the economy and the pandemic has caused him to move to campaign as the ?law and order? president, but this too is failing as his ?secret police? (for example in Portland, where federal agents were unmarked and unnamed) are attacking and hooding and capturing unarmed peaceful protesters, pullin > g them into unmarked vans, and the federal agents are the ones causing the violence themselves, against moms and Catholics. (They?ve since been driven out of Portland, and guess what? No more violence.). These feds are just another photo op for Trump, akin to his tear gassing peaceful protesters in order to walk across the street and raise a Bible (which I doubt Mr. Two Corinthians has ever opened) upside down outside of the Episcopal church in front of the White House. > > * https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/who-caused-violence-protests-its-not-antifa/ > * https://www.voanews.com/usa/four-extremist-groups-suspected-involvement-protest-violence > * https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-the-law-and-order-candidate-thats-a-laugh/2020/07/14/17037e86-c610-11ea-b037-f9711f89ee46_story.html > * https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/508597-the-memo-trump-struggles-to-get-traction-with-law-and-order-message > * https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/trump-getting-what-he-wants-portland/614635/ > > Your gross misinformation is because of the what?s happened to the media today ? which was supposed to be the fourth estate, part of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches? checks and balances on each other ? but has failed miserably at its job ever since the FCC Fairness Doctrine was repealed: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#:~:text=The%20fairness%20doctrine%20of%20the,honest%2C%20equitable%2C%20and%20balanced. > > Because of that, news outlets of any source - TV, newspapers, magazines, internet ? can report anything they want. So we now have two completely different realities, and half of American live in one reality conveyed by one side of the aisle, while the other half lives in an entirely different reality conveyed by a different side of the aisle. > > Oh, wait, who said, fifty years ago, that that would happen? > > It has never been more important that Americans today have to be critical thinkers to evaluate news sources and information they come across to find out what the truth really is. But critical thinking and civics classes no longer exist in our high schools, so few Americans have any idea how to evaluate the media. Hence the great divide that Percy writes about - not just two sets of attitudes about the same set of facts, but completely different sets of facts, completely different realities entirely. > > My hope is that you will find better, more accurate sources, and become a better critical thinker concerning the constant bombardment of lies and misinformation that propagate in America. > > As for Lauren?s poem, I have another poem (there are many versions, here?s just one): > > First they came for the Communists > And I did not speak out > Because I was not a Communist > Then they came for the Socialists > And I did not speak out > Because I was not a Socialist > Then they came for the trade unionists > And I did not speak out > Because I was not a trade unionist > Then they came for the Jews > And I did not speak out > Because I was not a Jew > Then they came for me > And there was no one left > To speak out for me > > America is in a crisis. Percy would not have been quiet, and he wasn?t. He spoke out in his novels, even before this happened. > > Karey > > > > Karey Perkins, M.A., M.A.T., Ph.D. > Assistant Professor, Department of English > 296A Turner Hall, South Carolina State University > Orangeburg, SC 29117 > kperkin1 at scsu.edu | 803-536-7016 > www.scsu.edu > Member, Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism > Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-0002 > kareperk at ttu.edu | http://www.pragmaticism.net > > > > > On Aug 7, 2020, at 6:36 AM, janetcantor37--- via Percy-L > wrote: > > You opened so well. Federalist #10 is my favorite of the Federalist Papers. > Then you fell into conclusions that do not match mine. > > I agree that pluralism as you describe it - belief in the ascendancy of our attachment to factions instead of love of the whole, patriotism, love of country - is not good. > > The trouble is when I look up the definition of pluralism, it is the opposite of how you describe it. > > So I am going to tell you how I read #10: > > Our country needed a strong central symbol, the flag, a president, so that our individual interests (factions) could never get big enough to disrupt or bring down the whole. If we wanted to be a "country", able to defend itself against outside mischief from other countries, we had to be unified. Pluralism entailed allowing individuals as well as states and individual interests to be protected from meddling or destruction, as long as those individuals did not break the country's laws. > > The colonies were worried that they had just left the King and wanted no parts of a president. So #10 tried to explain all about the protections we would put in place so individual interests and minorities would not fall prey to a new kind of tyranny. They would put in place protections of each state by having representations in a Senate where every colony - eventually state - would get the same representation no matter how small it was compared to the others. They would put in place a Court to interpret the law. And the constant tension among all of these entities would prevent a president from having too much power and individuals or groups with they interest from inciting confusions to bring down the whole, the U.S. > The central power in the hands of a president having to contend with these safeguards against its controlling all the power would help keep all individual Americans safe. > The larger the country, the more diverse the separate states, the more difficult it would be for a dictatorship to arise. > The colonies became convinced and stopped fearing having a president. > > > Again, you were doing so well, It is true that leftists of recent history love chopping us up into groups with grievances so they can better control us. > > Where you went astray is when you began describing the "seething resentment " of the right and its origins. > > There is no resentment in Republicans and other rightists here from having Civil Rights legislation shoved down "their throats". > It was the Republicans throughout our history who instigated and helped bring about the end of slavery against the Democrats. It was the right which fought for integration. > The KKK, those who fought to preserve slavery and prevent integration of schools were always in the Democrat Party. > LBJ got lots of attention when he passed the Civil Rights act, but without the votes of Republicans in Congress, it would never have come to fruition. > > Tax cuts were never designed to drive up the deficit, but to spur growth of the economy which would bring more money into government, not less. When JFK passed his tax cuts, the economy got a big push and the government made more money. > > Yes, both sides promise heaven on earth. But if you look at the history from 1976 until today it is a series of democrats pulling the country away from capitalism and Republicans correcting their mistakes and fixing the country and then the sliding again when democrats win again. > Taking power away from the central government to give us goodies or manage things is a good thing. > Reagan fixed Carter's disastrous economy. > Under Clinton we were headed back to catastrophe again until the 1994 Republican congress came in and fixed everything again, and then Clinton took credit for it, and that's okay, because at least he didn't get in the way. And I don't want to ruffle feathers, but recently the pattern began again. > And until the plague hit us, we were coasting along in the best economy ever. > > Too much federal spending is terrible, I agree and both sides are guilty of that. Dismantling private property protection is lethally bad. We agree there. Oligarchs stealing from private citizens is a disease, yes. Taking power from individuals is dangerous. But we get more of these bad things every time we elect Democrats and this time the contrast couldn't be starker. > > I don't know about the Koch Brothers, but George Soros and the teachers unions have them beat when it comes to stealing power from individuals and placing it in the hands of government operators. > > Wages were going up, unemployment was virtually disappearing, and minorities of all kinds benefitted from these things the most. And then the pandemic struck and we were told were have to close down the economy. > If this hadn't happened, we would have been in excellent economic shape. > > The chaos of now is a left wing phenomenon. These destructive mobs are avowed Marxists by their own definition. the graffiti and bringing down of statues and buildings and chaos and murder is all a left wing phenomenon these days - and BTW, occurring in cities run by progressive democrats. > > As for the left abandoning claims on material wealth and economic justice, where do you see that? It is in the Democrat party where you find the most rich who came into government with modest savings and left multi millionaires. > > Hillsdale College, which I would describe as closer to conservatism than liberalism as defined these days, does not deconstruct, does not elevate personal revelation above law or enable will to power movement. Hillsdale encourages individual responsibility. > Lovers of safe spaces where nobody has to be overruled is a leftist phenomenon. > > Where are you finding in your George Zimmerman narrative that those three points you name are being forgotten by the Right? I call myself a rightist and those points seem just fine to me. > > Look how easy it is for two sides to see the same facts and come to completely different readings of what is going on. > > Of course, the big question is what would Percy make of it all these days? > I am guessing he would hate what anarchist Marxists are doing to our cities, and attempting to do to our history, and our culture. We all should. I know that Percy would despair that things are not better. And I suspect he might find it very difficult to write those crazy fun house novels of his with their gorgeous endings. > > I suggest that each of us should settle down and set aside time to read the beautiful book by Wilfred McClay, Land of Hope. It clears up a lot of the confusion between Wade Riddick and me. And, borrowing from Ariel in The Tempest, it is so inspiring, it will make any reader cry if he is human. > > Janet Cantor > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:47 AM, Wade Riddick > > wrote: > What many people fail to understand is that both the Knotheads and the > NOT-heads (i.e., "cancel culture") spring from the same toxic stew of sins: > pluralism. > > Pluralism is the belief that we have rights not as citizens of countries but > through the groups we belong to - race, gender, etc. The pluralists think > democracy is useless and unless we bind together into our "group" we can't be > represented. Leaving the group for another or disagreeing with your assigned > "interest" is the deepest betrayal and provokes a backlash imminently Freudian > in its ferocity. I haven't seen anything like it since I argued with the > Communist Party cult remnants in graduate school about the value of money. > They don't accept that "interests" cut across these boundaries. They don't > want to see, for instance, that women have an interest in men graduating from > college so they can have marriageable mates. They're an extension of the > Zuckerberg computerization of our lives that wants to chop us up into > interests so they can monetize us when we connect that way. > > NOT-heads aren't "almost angry" at the Constitution; they're in outright > contempt of it because the founders were explicitly against this form of > thinking. In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison warns that giving organized > groups of people the same rights as actual individual citizens will destroy > real rights for those citizens and enable factionalism. This type of group > behavior has to be controlled or it will destroy the community of democracy. > > The knotheads are simply a different side of that tribalism - the Confederacy > tribe. This other great enemy of democracy has been engaged in its own long > war against federalism going back to the days of the first Confederacy. The > anger you see on the "right" is seething resentment from having civil rights > legislation shoved down their throats. Since the '70s, the Republican Party > has been fueled by vendetta Dixiecrats fishing for ways to make the Federal > government fail - first with Nixon's failed budget impoundment, then with tax > cuts they hoped would drive up the deficit so high one day they could use it > as an excuse to gut spending. ("We're finally bankrupt. Yay!") But every > escalating disaster caused by their sabotage of government action - 9/11, > credit default swap implosions, Hurricane Katerina, S&L crises - only > increased demand for government action - because, as you see today, there's no > other central actor in America that can handle crises of this magnitude. > > These two sides resemble one another because racism - tribal revenge - is a > communicable disease, quickly mutualizing contempt when unchecked. Social > media has brought us into one another's lives like never before and many of us > can't stand what we see. (Maybe better digital fences would make better > digital neighbors.) Contempt breeds contempt and without tolerance for one > another, democratic compromise is impossible and we can't govern ourselves - > which suits the short-term interests of the oligarchs just fine. They need to > dismantle property protections (i.e., the justice system), if they're going to > steal from us. > > What does this have to do with anything? > > When you leave groups on their own to organize, those with the most money > oraganize the best. Sick people are probably the most important group in the > country because when you become sick, you lose your autonomy and become > dependent upon others. Sick people also have the least influence on the > political system because all our time and money is tied up in being sick. > Ditto for groups like the poor and unemployed - because you need resources to > organize yourselves. Some interests can't organize themselves like this. > That's the function of government - to organize and address the concerns of > all citizens. > > What the NOT-heads fail to acknowledge is that their attitudes towards > politics benefit the very oligarchs paying for us to hate each other. The > insidious idea underlying pluralism is that these groups somehow "compete" > with one another for "influence" over the government. That is, they bribe > officials. This is what I mean when I say a coup took place at the Supreme > Court level in the 1970s when unelected judges equated bribery of politicians > with "free speech." If you want to see what the Koch Brother's perfect market > in politics looks like, go visit Mexico today where every official is > available for a price (or soon shot). That's the future that awaits us. > > So these two groups, lacking any pragmatic influence on positive agendas, > can't govern. They can only veto, fume and fulminate. That's where we find > ourselves. They both promise heaven on earth but can't even stop graffiti, > much less a pandemic. Reality collides with these delusions and knocks > followers into the same fatalistic flights of fancy that all failed > charismatic cults descend into. Donald Trump becomes the Stokely Carmichael > of white power and the Abbie Hoffman of the pandemic - gonna levitate that > 'ronavirus with the good feelings of his mind ray. > > It's clear how the Confederacy keeps winding up in the same spot. It's more > interesting how the Left fell into this heresy. Basically, in the '60s and > '70s, Nixon destroyed the Left with targeted assassinations of Black Panther > leadership, the War on Drugs, Cointelpro and other programs. The apparatus > developed against democracy in Vietnam and Indonesia was reimported to > "deradicalize" urban resistance to the new oil imperialist/banking oligarchy > that you now see coming apart. This is why, today, we have such high > incarceration rates: Jim Crow Part II. > > With both parties now locked down by bribery, unions getting dismantled and > wages driven down, there was no room anymore for the Left outside academia and > to succeed on the Left there, you had to abandon claims on material wealth and > economic justice or you'd be dealt with too. Courses on Locke, Rousseau and > Madison were shunted aside and restricted to graduate school - if available at > all - so no uppity undergrads would ever have the gall to attack undemocratic > militarism with democratic theory ever again. That forced the Left into a > peculiarly sterile conversation about race and sex - not the underlying > sources of injustice there that could never be questioned but rather on > personal experience - to a fatalistically myopic degree. The end result of > this is something called, bizarrely, Boasian antiracism > . > > A similar defenestration of Christianity occurred on the right. It's > considered "heresy" now to discuss the fact that Jesus wanted debt > cancellation - when in fact the heresy is failing to point out that he did and > that led to the crucifixion. > > Blame it all on the "Me Decade" of the '70s. Both the right and the left > turned toward the personal, especially personal narrative and confessional - > and new forms of communication gave them this power. Both sides fell prey to > exaggerated doctrines of Deconstruction, elevating personal revelation above > law, constitution and Gospel truth enabling the "will-to-power" movements > common in fascism. Out went universal meaning and in swept wishy-washy > relativism with "safe spaces" where nobody has to be overruled. > > Charismatic evangelicals (read: segregationists) substituted personal > confession for Biblical truth. Witness George Zimmerman claiming it was part > of God's plan he shoot an unarmed black boy walking home at night. The Right > ate it up forgetting that > > 1) No greater love has a man than he gives up his life to save another (*not* > takes another). > 2) Do not be overcome by evil but rather overcome evil with good. > 3) There is no fear in love. Love casts out fear. > > Zimmerman got out of the car that night armed with a gun because he was afraid > he might die and unafraid to kill - pretty much the opposite of a Christian. > But the anti-Christian charismatics ate it up in their culture war because he > hated the right people. > > Of course, on the Left, these ironic contradictions abound too. > > When I heard Bruce Jenner confessing happiness at no longer having to lie to > everybody, my first thought was, "He's admitting to cheating with steroids > like I'm positive almost everybody in track and field at the Olympic level has > been doing since the '50s?" > > No. > > My second thought was, "He's apologizing for giving people cancer and diabetes > by selling us Wheaties?" > > Nope again. > > He's transgendered. > > Oh. > > How was that ever my business? > > What about all the people harmed by the cheating? > > Oh, well? > > In the future, we did get our fifteen minutes of fame and now we're all > trapped in our own personality cults. We're one big self-published, unedited > echo chamber of one. Ours is an era of personal narrative devoid of genuine > readers. Reading takes kindness. Reading takes reflection and reflection is > the enemy of sensationalist tweets. (Got to move those ads.) Bridging these > islands of self presupposes an objective reality that can sustain us while > we're "at sea" off your own island. I think Percy referred to this as the > "intersubjective." > > But politically speaking, no man is an island. We can't be our own subjects > of one, which was Madison's point. Substituting mob gangs does not give you a > better form of government. > > We all fall prey to different heresies of perfection. Tech bros seem to think > the world will become a perfect place with enough microchips thrown at it. > (I've debugged too much code to believe that one.) The flip side of that is > nasty too. Nostalgia is the enemy of forgiveness, which was a major theme of > Percy's. Nostalgia imagines a perfect past. If the past was once perfect - > or at least better - then the screwed up way things are today is unnecessary > and we need no forgiveness. We just need to travel back in our memory to get > there. > > But there's no one left showing us how fallible that memory is. Those critics > disappeared in our flattened new perspective on life. > > We shouldn't idealize the past or despise it. Nor should we idealize the > future. We should be, in our dire time of need, raging Pragmatists and > radicalized moderates. > > Wade Riddick > > > ------ Original Message ------ > Received: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 10:43:12 AM EDT > From: Ernest Hutton > > To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > > > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 11 > > ? > ?Hazel Motes (in Flannery O?Connor?s Wise Blood), searches for God by > railing against organized religion. But in doing so, he prophesizes the > authoritarian end-state pushed by today?s cancel culture: ?Where you come > from is gone, where you thought you were going to never was there, and where > you are is no good unless you can get away from it.? > > O?Connor had it right, and is now a victim of her own perspicacity. This > reign of terror is destroying us all! > > Ernie Hutton > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > Ernest W Hutton Jr. FAICP Assoc AIA > Hutton Associates Inc. > New York/ Westhampton > 917.836.7902 > > 17 Woodbridge Lane, Quiogue > Westhampton Beach NY 11978 > >>> On Aug 6, 2020, at 4:55 AM, Plemmons, Gregory > > wrote: >> ? >> Patrick Connelly, a Percy scholar, spoke on Percy and race at one of the > former Walker Percy Weekends. He commonly referenced a quote from Percy (I > wish I knew the original source) about the eternal ?problem of human frailty > trapped in historical circumstance?. That quote has stuck with me. It has > echoes of Pompeii, especially as we seem to be entering a whole new era of > cancel culture. The extreme left?s iconoclasm frightens me almost as much as > that of the Knotheads. I wish people could devote more energy inward toward > themselves and the current state of things. While dissecting the past will > always have some merit, what are we ourselves going to be judged on, fifty > years from now? Even five years from this pandemic? Percy was imperfect as the > best of us, but he and his family also slept in their attic for two weeks > after a bomb threat from the local Klan in 1969, after defending the removal > of the Confederate flag from the principal?s office of the local high > school. >> >> Zadie Smith took a stab recently attempting to answer the question of the > purpose of fiction. ?Does it seem at all surprising in 2019...that we should > have this hypersensitivity?... Whereas many more material issues?economic > inequality, criminal justice reform, immigration?prove frighteningly > intractable, language becomes the convenient battlefield.? >> >> Apologies for the long-winded rant. I read the New Yorker article. It taught > me nothing new. Flannery was trapped as anyone. Her poor physical health is > often overlooked. Lupus is a horrible disease and there were little options > for treatment or even simple relief in her time. Again, ?historical > circumstance?. I like to think if her disease hadn?t claimed her at 39, > her views might have evolved, too. I guess we?ll never know. >> >> Gregory Plemmons, MD >> >>> On Aug 5, 2020, at 7:17 PM, Charles Cowherd > > wrote: >>> ? >>> Just to weigh in on the Flannery O?Connor/ Paul Elie scrum. >>> At the seminary (Episcopal) that I attended, a professor had included the > short story ?The Artificial N____? in his compendium of short stories > matched up to the preaching lectionary. (Flannery O?Connor fiction is VERY > popular in Episcopal circles.) >>> A draft copy somehow was made available to my fellow students, who opposed > the inclusion. There was a big townhall meeting, a student petition, > eventually the professor/author agreed to remove the story. >>> This was about 3 years ago. >>> I offer that up merely as another tiny data point in whatever this > particular moment is all about. I know that Walker Percy spoke on that short > story specifically but cannot find it, it?s in CONVERSATIONS with WALKER > PECY. >>> I do think that it?s a topic that we can discuss on this forum with care > and concern and kindness for one another. >>> Also, I have been reading THE NEW YORKER all my life (?a wonderful Yankee > magazine?- my Dad always would say!). Only with this article the magazine it > reveal how detached it is, as a source of journalism, from the world. It > reminded me of Percy?s dislike (too soft a word?) for Descartes. Instead, > Percy believed we are all embodied creatures, fallen and stumbling in the > world. Whereas the New Yorker writes an article with the title: ?How Racist > was Flannery O?Connor?? without any source of social location of time and > place. >>> All my best, >>> Charles Cowherd >>> [ WARNING : This email came from an external source. Please treat this > message with additional caution.] >>> ---------------------------------- >>> * Percy-L Discussion Archives: > https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fpipermail%2Fpercy-l%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=XfC7cic65rm4ymcMNug%2B0i5pmKf%2BJaNoM7zlg%2FH9h%2FU%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> * Manage Your Membership: > https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpercy-l&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=9Q3bnPoYfd2OBARKSecfmQiRP7qZKsewQN2GiBaj4t0%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org >>> >>> * Visit The Walker Percy Project: > https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibiblio.org%2Fwpercy&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=vrA7LTBbjJ5lMFvbs6qJWQEFInGNNbuAWzJRCZDE1HY%3D&reserved=0 >> >> ---------------------------------- >> * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ >> >> * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l >> >> * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org >> >> * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Percy-L mailing list > Percy-L at lists.ibiblio.org > https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 21 > **************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kterrell at stokeswagner.com Fri Aug 7 23:03:03 2020 From: kterrell at stokeswagner.com (Karl M. Terrell) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 03:03:03 +0000 Subject: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 21 In-Reply-To: <54D872BC-7DC6-449D-9007-AE35DE201F38@me.com> References: , <54D872BC-7DC6-449D-9007-AE35DE201F38@me.com> Message-ID: <989B6C34-3C54-4272-B0A6-5C0DFD920ED6@stokeswagner.com> Your view is well taken, Stephen. However, in his time, Dr. Percy commented often in his essays on the divisive state of American affairs. This divisiveness, in fact, provided a central theme for Love in the Ruins. The debate here continues in the same tradition, especially as it relates to the American South. Percy was a flesh and blood Southerner. A prominent Southerner. One cannot divorce his life from all that this entails. Karl Montague Terrell Brevard, N.C. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 7, 2020, at 10:16 PM, Stephen Holmgren via Percy-L wrote: ? Hi: I thought this conversation medium was provided for opportunities to share reflection on Walker Percy?s writing and thought. The recent digressions into contemporary and or recent historical political observations and commentary are not helpful nor are they insightful. Let?s focus on Percy?s vision and work, and not on extraneous ?stuff? that is more likely to lead to argument (in the contemporary popular sense of combatting expressions of animus), rather than reasoned engagement with one another. Yes, there are a lot of bad ?thems? out there. We know less about ?them' than we do the bad ?me/us? that we are. And about that, Percy seemed to be most attentive and discerning. Thanks for the opportunity to participate in the continuing conversation here. Stephen Stephen Holmgren stephenholmgren at me.com blog: www.towardbeauty.org book: Ethics After Easter On Aug 7, 2020, at 9:56 PM, percy-l-request at lists.ibiblio.org wrote: Send Percy-L mailing list submissions to percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to percy-l-request at lists.ibiblio.org You can reach the person managing the list at percy-l-owner at lists.ibiblio.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Percy-L digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: A response to Janet Cantor (Karl M. Terrell) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 00:22:42 +0000 From: "Karl M. Terrell" To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" Subject: Re: [percy-l] A response to Janet Cantor Message-ID: <65A7D392-A2E3-452B-9187-079E36316EA2 at stokeswagner.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Well said, Karey. To your first point, the equivocation fallacy ? that Civil War & Reconstruction-era Republicans are not the same as the GOP of today ? it should be pointed out also that the ardent segregationists in the Democratic Party were almost exclusively Southern. In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran for President as a Dixiecrat, and then after 1964 he became a Republican. The rest of the Southern Democrats followed him out the door. This was an act of shameful protest in response to the passages of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 1965 and 1968. These newly minted Republicans then joined forces with the Goldwater / Nixon (Southern Strategy) / Reagan wing of the GOP. From that point forward, we witnessed the steady destruction of the moderate wing of the GOP (Rockefeller, Lodge, Ford and others). This leads me to respond to another erroneous point by Ms. Cantor: ?Tax cuts were never designed to drive up the deficit, but to spur growth of the economy which would bring more money into government, not less. When JFK passed his tax cuts, the economy got a big push and the government made more money.? Sorry, but ... this is just flat wrong (apart from her comment about JFK, addressed below). Two points: (1) I am sure Ms. Cantor is familiar with Grover Norquist, the influential architect & firebrand of GOP tax strategy. His mantra ? his guiding principle ? was ?starve the beast.? The promoted idea was smaller government, passed off as a bromide, but what really was afoot was an attack on the legitimacy of government. This attack was perfected by Reagan, who famously quipped the so-called ?most terrifying words? are (paraphrasing) ?I?m here from the government to help you.? In saying this, Reagan was playing crudely off the simplistic notion that government operations are perceived (generally) as not as efficient or as effective as for-profit businesses ? a fair enough observation, but one that wholly misses the point of the proper role that government, in fact, must play, if we are to have a just society that provides for all. It was all a front. The clear intent was to enrich the fat cats, and to undermine the social progress which had been set in motion by the Civil Rights Acts that the GOP Southerners despised, and that were perceived by the fat cats as too expensive. The end result, over the last 4 decades, has been wage stagnation and the near-virtual destruction of the middle class (as constructed in the 1950s). The resulting wealth inequality is staggering, and offensive. (2) So-called ?trickle-down economics? have been proven time and time again to be a failure. Yes, JFK?s tax cuts ? from the Eisenhower era of very high taxes ? benefitted the economy, and so did Reagan?s. But, regarding the latter, what current Republicans always ignore is the fact that Reagan subsequently raised taxes several times. The GOP, instead, has simply turned ?tax cuts? into an unthinking religion. Trump?s tax cut perhaps provided a brief sugar high for the economy, but his tax cut never delivered on the selling point ? that it would lead to job creation and better wages. There is simply no evidence of this. Yes, the economy grew from 2017 until the pandemic, but this growth (apart from the afore-mentioned ?sugar high?) was simply a continuation of the corrections made by the Obama administration to the failed economy of G.W. Bush. Obama?s improvements to the economy took clear hold in 2011 ? six years before Trump took office! The Trump tax cut simply enabled the big corporations to go on a binge of stock buybacks, and the uber-wealthy pocketed their windfall. The rich got rich and the poor ? maybe they didn?t get poorer between 2017 and 2020 ? but, to be sure, there were no advances in opportunity, nor any advances over the sad reality that huge numbers in this country live two paychecks away from bankruptcy. And stop calling the American left ?Marxists.? It?s just plain stupid to do so. The American economy has long been a mix of both capitalism and socialism, with capitalism plainly dominant ? and this will remain the case. Progressives are simply calling for a heavier thumb on the socialism side of the scale. This is necessary, and a clear majority of Americans agree ? on an issue-by-issue basis, as polls consistently show ? in order to correct the current injustices in our economy, and the current absence of opportunity for the betterment of vast numbers of Americans. The chickens are coming home to roost, Ms. Cantor. **** I recognize this has little to do with Percy ?as least not directly. That said, Ms. Cantor chose this forum for the spewing of her uninformed opinions. Inasmuch as she chose to swim here, she should not be surprised that critical thinkers will provide a swift counter current. Karl Montague Terrell Brevard, N.C. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 7, 2020, at 1:42 PM, Karey Perkins wrote: ? First of all, thank you once again, Wade, for your brilliant and comprehensive analysis of what?s going on. Each of your paragraphs could be expanded into an entire essay in and of itself. I?d like to respond but the scope of your topics and analysis make it so overwhelming that I just will say, kudos to you. Janet, there is much to respond to in what you wrote, but overall, you are very misinformed. Your facts are just plain incorrect. I cannot address every single point, so I will only address just three of your erroneous points, in order to make my point about your misinformation. I will also refer you to links that will help you to become more factually and correctly informed. #1, the Equivocation Fallacy: Republicans of the 1800s have absolutely nothing to do with the Republicans of today. That the past and the present Republican party bears the same name indicates absolutely nothing about its content nor its character nor its policies. To wit: The parties switched sides in the early 1900s. The Republican Party today foments and campaigns on racist policies and practices against both black and brown people, to the point that it has innocent children in concentration camps at the border, in horrific, inhumane conditions, more concerned about tracking raped girls periods to prevent them from having abortions than providing basic hygiene or tracking their parents to reunite families. (That?s just one example; there are literally hundreds of thousands more.). As for the early twentieth century switch and why, I?ll just leave a couple of links here to educate you as to the general historical background of the switch; there are far more out there for you t o read if you?d like to pursue this research: * https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html * https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south * https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a26985261/trump-administration-abortion-period-tracking-migrant-women/ #2, the Koch brothers decades-long stealth takeover of the United States government: Read Jane Mayers' Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires behind the Rise of the Radical Right. * https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/books/review/dark-money-by-jane-mayer.html * https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south #3, that BLM, antifa, and other leftist protesters are inciting violence: Almost all of the protests are peaceful demonstrators exercising their first amendment rights. Nor are these groups in any way at all ?anarchist? - they just don?t like the fascism and racism that is rising in our country. Antifa literally refers to being ?anti-fascist? and is ?a moniker, not a single group with an organizational structure or leader.? It is an adjective, not a noun. Right wing social media and right wing media are propagating the myth that these are groups are violent, yet evidence shows that white nationalists and opportunists have infiltrated the protests to instigate violence. Trump's failures on the economy and the pandemic has caused him to move to campaign as the ?law and order? president, but this too is failing as his ?secret police? (for example in Portland, where federal agents were unmarked and unnamed) are attacking and hooding and capturing unarmed peaceful protesters, pullin g them into unmarked vans, and the federal agents are the ones causing the violence themselves, against moms and Catholics. (They?ve since been driven out of Portland, and guess what? No more violence.). These feds are just another photo op for Trump, akin to his tear gassing peaceful protesters in order to walk across the street and raise a Bible (which I doubt Mr. Two Corinthians has ever opened) upside down outside of the Episcopal church in front of the White House. * https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/who-caused-violence-protests-its-not-antifa/ * https://www.voanews.com/usa/four-extremist-groups-suspected-involvement-protest-violence * https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-the-law-and-order-candidate-thats-a-laugh/2020/07/14/17037e86-c610-11ea-b037-f9711f89ee46_story.html * https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/508597-the-memo-trump-struggles-to-get-traction-with-law-and-order-message * https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/trump-getting-what-he-wants-portland/614635/ Your gross misinformation is because of the what?s happened to the media today ? which was supposed to be the fourth estate, part of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches? checks and balances on each other ? but has failed miserably at its job ever since the FCC Fairness Doctrine was repealed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#:~:text=The%20fairness%20doctrine%20of%20the,honest%2C%20equitable%2C%20and%20balanced. Because of that, news outlets of any source - TV, newspapers, magazines, internet ? can report anything they want. So we now have two completely different realities, and half of American live in one reality conveyed by one side of the aisle, while the other half lives in an entirely different reality conveyed by a different side of the aisle. Oh, wait, who said, fifty years ago, that that would happen? It has never been more important that Americans today have to be critical thinkers to evaluate news sources and information they come across to find out what the truth really is. But critical thinking and civics classes no longer exist in our high schools, so few Americans have any idea how to evaluate the media. Hence the great divide that Percy writes about - not just two sets of attitudes about the same set of facts, but completely different sets of facts, completely different realities entirely. My hope is that you will find better, more accurate sources, and become a better critical thinker concerning the constant bombardment of lies and misinformation that propagate in America. As for Lauren?s poem, I have another poem (there are many versions, here?s just one): First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me America is in a crisis. Percy would not have been quiet, and he wasn?t. He spoke out in his novels, even before this happened. Karey Karey Perkins, M.A., M.A.T., Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of English 296A Turner Hall, South Carolina State University Orangeburg, SC 29117 kperkin1 at scsu.edu | 803-536-7016 www.scsu.edu Member, Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-0002 kareperk at ttu.edu | http://www.pragmaticism.net On Aug 7, 2020, at 6:36 AM, janetcantor37--- via Percy-L > wrote: You opened so well. Federalist #10 is my favorite of the Federalist Papers. Then you fell into conclusions that do not match mine. I agree that pluralism as you describe it - belief in the ascendancy of our attachment to factions instead of love of the whole, patriotism, love of country - is not good. The trouble is when I look up the definition of pluralism, it is the opposite of how you describe it. So I am going to tell you how I read #10: Our country needed a strong central symbol, the flag, a president, so that our individual interests (factions) could never get big enough to disrupt or bring down the whole. If we wanted to be a "country", able to defend itself against outside mischief from other countries, we had to be unified. Pluralism entailed allowing individuals as well as states and individual interests to be protected from meddling or destruction, as long as those individuals did not break the country's laws. The colonies were worried that they had just left the King and wanted no parts of a president. So #10 tried to explain all about the protections we would put in place so individual interests and minorities would not fall prey to a new kind of tyranny. They would put in place protections of each state by having representations in a Senate where every colony - eventually state - would get the same representation no matter how small it was compared to the others. They would put in place a Court to interpret the law. And the constant tension among all of these entities would prevent a president from having too much power and individuals or groups with they interest from inciting confusions to bring down the whole, the U.S. The central power in the hands of a president having to contend with these safeguards against its controlling all the power would help keep all individual Americans safe. The larger the country, the more diverse the separate states, the more difficult it would be for a dictatorship to arise. The colonies became convinced and stopped fearing having a president. Again, you were doing so well, It is true that leftists of recent history love chopping us up into groups with grievances so they can better control us. Where you went astray is when you began describing the "seething resentment " of the right and its origins. There is no resentment in Republicans and other rightists here from having Civil Rights legislation shoved down "their throats". It was the Republicans throughout our history who instigated and helped bring about the end of slavery against the Democrats. It was the right which fought for integration. The KKK, those who fought to preserve slavery and prevent integration of schools were always in the Democrat Party. LBJ got lots of attention when he passed the Civil Rights act, but without the votes of Republicans in Congress, it would never have come to fruition. Tax cuts were never designed to drive up the deficit, but to spur growth of the economy which would bring more money into government, not less. When JFK passed his tax cuts, the economy got a big push and the government made more money. Yes, both sides promise heaven on earth. But if you look at the history from 1976 until today it is a series of democrats pulling the country away from capitalism and Republicans correcting their mistakes and fixing the country and then the sliding again when democrats win again. Taking power away from the central government to give us goodies or manage things is a good thing. Reagan fixed Carter's disastrous economy. Under Clinton we were headed back to catastrophe again until the 1994 Republican congress came in and fixed everything again, and then Clinton took credit for it, and that's okay, because at least he didn't get in the way. And I don't want to ruffle feathers, but recently the pattern began again. And until the plague hit us, we were coasting along in the best economy ever. Too much federal spending is terrible, I agree and both sides are guilty of that. Dismantling private property protection is lethally bad. We agree there. Oligarchs stealing from private citizens is a disease, yes. Taking power from individuals is dangerous. But we get more of these bad things every time we elect Democrats and this time the contrast couldn't be starker. I don't know about the Koch Brothers, but George Soros and the teachers unions have them beat when it comes to stealing power from individuals and placing it in the hands of government operators. Wages were going up, unemployment was virtually disappearing, and minorities of all kinds benefitted from these things the most. And then the pandemic struck and we were told were have to close down the economy. If this hadn't happened, we would have been in excellent economic shape. The chaos of now is a left wing phenomenon. These destructive mobs are avowed Marxists by their own definition. the graffiti and bringing down of statues and buildings and chaos and murder is all a left wing phenomenon these days - and BTW, occurring in cities run by progressive democrats. As for the left abandoning claims on material wealth and economic justice, where do you see that? It is in the Democrat party where you find the most rich who came into government with modest savings and left multi millionaires. Hillsdale College, which I would describe as closer to conservatism than liberalism as defined these days, does not deconstruct, does not elevate personal revelation above law or enable will to power movement. Hillsdale encourages individual responsibility. Lovers of safe spaces where nobody has to be overruled is a leftist phenomenon. Where are you finding in your George Zimmerman narrative that those three points you name are being forgotten by the Right? I call myself a rightist and those points seem just fine to me. Look how easy it is for two sides to see the same facts and come to completely different readings of what is going on. Of course, the big question is what would Percy make of it all these days? I am guessing he would hate what anarchist Marxists are doing to our cities, and attempting to do to our history, and our culture. We all should. I know that Percy would despair that things are not better. And I suspect he might find it very difficult to write those crazy fun house novels of his with their gorgeous endings. I suggest that each of us should settle down and set aside time to read the beautiful book by Wilfred McClay, Land of Hope. It clears up a lot of the confusion between Wade Riddick and me. And, borrowing from Ariel in The Tempest, it is so inspiring, it will make any reader cry if he is human. Janet Cantor On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:47 AM, Wade Riddick > wrote: What many people fail to understand is that both the Knotheads and the NOT-heads (i.e., "cancel culture") spring from the same toxic stew of sins: pluralism. Pluralism is the belief that we have rights not as citizens of countries but through the groups we belong to - race, gender, etc. The pluralists think democracy is useless and unless we bind together into our "group" we can't be represented. Leaving the group for another or disagreeing with your assigned "interest" is the deepest betrayal and provokes a backlash imminently Freudian in its ferocity. I haven't seen anything like it since I argued with the Communist Party cult remnants in graduate school about the value of money. They don't accept that "interests" cut across these boundaries. They don't want to see, for instance, that women have an interest in men graduating from college so they can have marriageable mates. They're an extension of the Zuckerberg computerization of our lives that wants to chop us up into interests so they can monetize us when we connect that way. NOT-heads aren't "almost angry" at the Constitution; they're in outright contempt of it because the founders were explicitly against this form of thinking. In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison warns that giving organized groups of people the same rights as actual individual citizens will destroy real rights for those citizens and enable factionalism. This type of group behavior has to be controlled or it will destroy the community of democracy. The knotheads are simply a different side of that tribalism - the Confederacy tribe. This other great enemy of democracy has been engaged in its own long war against federalism going back to the days of the first Confederacy. The anger you see on the "right" is seething resentment from having civil rights legislation shoved down their throats. Since the '70s, the Republican Party has been fueled by vendetta Dixiecrats fishing for ways to make the Federal government fail - first with Nixon's failed budget impoundment, then with tax cuts they hoped would drive up the deficit so high one day they could use it as an excuse to gut spending. ("We're finally bankrupt. Yay!") But every escalating disaster caused by their sabotage of government action - 9/11, credit default swap implosions, Hurricane Katerina, S&L crises - only increased demand for government action - because, as you see today, there's no other central actor in America that can handle crises of this magnitude. These two sides resemble one another because racism - tribal revenge - is a communicable disease, quickly mutualizing contempt when unchecked. Social media has brought us into one another's lives like never before and many of us can't stand what we see. (Maybe better digital fences would make better digital neighbors.) Contempt breeds contempt and without tolerance for one another, democratic compromise is impossible and we can't govern ourselves - which suits the short-term interests of the oligarchs just fine. They need to dismantle property protections (i.e., the justice system), if they're going to steal from us. What does this have to do with anything? When you leave groups on their own to organize, those with the most money oraganize the best. Sick people are probably the most important group in the country because when you become sick, you lose your autonomy and become dependent upon others. Sick people also have the least influence on the political system because all our time and money is tied up in being sick. Ditto for groups like the poor and unemployed - because you need resources to organize yourselves. Some interests can't organize themselves like this. That's the function of government - to organize and address the concerns of all citizens. What the NOT-heads fail to acknowledge is that their attitudes towards politics benefit the very oligarchs paying for us to hate each other. The insidious idea underlying pluralism is that these groups somehow "compete" with one another for "influence" over the government. That is, they bribe officials. This is what I mean when I say a coup took place at the Supreme Court level in the 1970s when unelected judges equated bribery of politicians with "free speech." If you want to see what the Koch Brother's perfect market in politics looks like, go visit Mexico today where every official is available for a price (or soon shot). That's the future that awaits us. So these two groups, lacking any pragmatic influence on positive agendas, can't govern. They can only veto, fume and fulminate. That's where we find ourselves. They both promise heaven on earth but can't even stop graffiti, much less a pandemic. Reality collides with these delusions and knocks followers into the same fatalistic flights of fancy that all failed charismatic cults descend into. Donald Trump becomes the Stokely Carmichael of white power and the Abbie Hoffman of the pandemic - gonna levitate that 'ronavirus with the good feelings of his mind ray. It's clear how the Confederacy keeps winding up in the same spot. It's more interesting how the Left fell into this heresy. Basically, in the '60s and '70s, Nixon destroyed the Left with targeted assassinations of Black Panther leadership, the War on Drugs, Cointelpro and other programs. The apparatus developed against democracy in Vietnam and Indonesia was reimported to "deradicalize" urban resistance to the new oil imperialist/banking oligarchy that you now see coming apart. This is why, today, we have such high incarceration rates: Jim Crow Part II. With both parties now locked down by bribery, unions getting dismantled and wages driven down, there was no room anymore for the Left outside academia and to succeed on the Left there, you had to abandon claims on material wealth and economic justice or you'd be dealt with too. Courses on Locke, Rousseau and Madison were shunted aside and restricted to graduate school - if available at all - so no uppity undergrads would ever have the gall to attack undemocratic militarism with democratic theory ever again. That forced the Left into a peculiarly sterile conversation about race and sex - not the underlying sources of injustice there that could never be questioned but rather on personal experience - to a fatalistically myopic degree. The end result of this is something called, bizarrely, Boasian antiracism . A similar defenestration of Christianity occurred on the right. It's considered "heresy" now to discuss the fact that Jesus wanted debt cancellation - when in fact the heresy is failing to point out that he did and that led to the crucifixion. Blame it all on the "Me Decade" of the '70s. Both the right and the left turned toward the personal, especially personal narrative and confessional - and new forms of communication gave them this power. Both sides fell prey to exaggerated doctrines of Deconstruction, elevating personal revelation above law, constitution and Gospel truth enabling the "will-to-power" movements common in fascism. Out went universal meaning and in swept wishy-washy relativism with "safe spaces" where nobody has to be overruled. Charismatic evangelicals (read: segregationists) substituted personal confession for Biblical truth. Witness George Zimmerman claiming it was part of God's plan he shoot an unarmed black boy walking home at night. The Right ate it up forgetting that 1) No greater love has a man than he gives up his life to save another (*not* takes another). 2) Do not be overcome by evil but rather overcome evil with good. 3) There is no fear in love. Love casts out fear. Zimmerman got out of the car that night armed with a gun because he was afraid he might die and unafraid to kill - pretty much the opposite of a Christian. But the anti-Christian charismatics ate it up in their culture war because he hated the right people. Of course, on the Left, these ironic contradictions abound too. When I heard Bruce Jenner confessing happiness at no longer having to lie to everybody, my first thought was, "He's admitting to cheating with steroids like I'm positive almost everybody in track and field at the Olympic level has been doing since the '50s?" No. My second thought was, "He's apologizing for giving people cancer and diabetes by selling us Wheaties?" Nope again. He's transgendered. Oh. How was that ever my business? What about all the people harmed by the cheating? Oh, well? In the future, we did get our fifteen minutes of fame and now we're all trapped in our own personality cults. We're one big self-published, unedited echo chamber of one. Ours is an era of personal narrative devoid of genuine readers. Reading takes kindness. Reading takes reflection and reflection is the enemy of sensationalist tweets. (Got to move those ads.) Bridging these islands of self presupposes an objective reality that can sustain us while we're "at sea" off your own island. I think Percy referred to this as the "intersubjective." But politically speaking, no man is an island. We can't be our own subjects of one, which was Madison's point. Substituting mob gangs does not give you a better form of government. We all fall prey to different heresies of perfection. Tech bros seem to think the world will become a perfect place with enough microchips thrown at it. (I've debugged too much code to believe that one.) The flip side of that is nasty too. Nostalgia is the enemy of forgiveness, which was a major theme of Percy's. Nostalgia imagines a perfect past. If the past was once perfect - or at least better - then the screwed up way things are today is unnecessary and we need no forgiveness. We just need to travel back in our memory to get there. But there's no one left showing us how fallible that memory is. Those critics disappeared in our flattened new perspective on life. We shouldn't idealize the past or despise it. Nor should we idealize the future. We should be, in our dire time of need, raging Pragmatists and radicalized moderates. Wade Riddick ------ Original Message ------ Received: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 10:43:12 AM EDT From: Ernest Hutton > To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 11 ? ?Hazel Motes (in Flannery O?Connor?s Wise Blood), searches for God by railing against organized religion. But in doing so, he prophesizes the authoritarian end-state pushed by today?s cancel culture: ?Where you come from is gone, where you thought you were going to never was there, and where you are is no good unless you can get away from it.? O?Connor had it right, and is now a victim of her own perspicacity. This reign of terror is destroying us all! Ernie Hutton Sent from my iPhone Ernest W Hutton Jr. FAICP Assoc AIA Hutton Associates Inc. New York/ Westhampton 917.836.7902 17 Woodbridge Lane, Quiogue Westhampton Beach NY 11978 On Aug 6, 2020, at 4:55 AM, Plemmons, Gregory > wrote: ? Patrick Connelly, a Percy scholar, spoke on Percy and race at one of the former Walker Percy Weekends. He commonly referenced a quote from Percy (I wish I knew the original source) about the eternal ?problem of human frailty trapped in historical circumstance?. That quote has stuck with me. It has echoes of Pompeii, especially as we seem to be entering a whole new era of cancel culture. The extreme left?s iconoclasm frightens me almost as much as that of the Knotheads. I wish people could devote more energy inward toward themselves and the current state of things. While dissecting the past will always have some merit, what are we ourselves going to be judged on, fifty years from now? Even five years from this pandemic? Percy was imperfect as the best of us, but he and his family also slept in their attic for two weeks after a bomb threat from the local Klan in 1969, after defending the removal of the Confederate flag from the principal?s office of the local high school. Zadie Smith took a stab recently attempting to answer the question of the purpose of fiction. ?Does it seem at all surprising in 2019...that we should have this hypersensitivity?... Whereas many more material issues?economic inequality, criminal justice reform, immigration?prove frighteningly intractable, language becomes the convenient battlefield.? Apologies for the long-winded rant. I read the New Yorker article. It taught me nothing new. Flannery was trapped as anyone. Her poor physical health is often overlooked. Lupus is a horrible disease and there were little options for treatment or even simple relief in her time. Again, ?historical circumstance?. I like to think if her disease hadn?t claimed her at 39, her views might have evolved, too. I guess we?ll never know. Gregory Plemmons, MD On Aug 5, 2020, at 7:17 PM, Charles Cowherd > wrote: ? Just to weigh in on the Flannery O?Connor/ Paul Elie scrum. At the seminary (Episcopal) that I attended, a professor had included the short story ?The Artificial N____? in his compendium of short stories matched up to the preaching lectionary. (Flannery O?Connor fiction is VERY popular in Episcopal circles.) A draft copy somehow was made available to my fellow students, who opposed the inclusion. There was a big townhall meeting, a student petition, eventually the professor/author agreed to remove the story. This was about 3 years ago. I offer that up merely as another tiny data point in whatever this particular moment is all about. I know that Walker Percy spoke on that short story specifically but cannot find it, it?s in CONVERSATIONS with WALKER PECY. I do think that it?s a topic that we can discuss on this forum with care and concern and kindness for one another. Also, I have been reading THE NEW YORKER all my life (?a wonderful Yankee magazine?- my Dad always would say!). Only with this article the magazine it reveal how detached it is, as a source of journalism, from the world. It reminded me of Percy?s dislike (too soft a word?) for Descartes. Instead, Percy believed we are all embodied creatures, fallen and stumbling in the world. Whereas the New Yorker writes an article with the title: ?How Racist was Flannery O?Connor?? without any source of social location of time and place. All my best, Charles Cowherd [ WARNING : This email came from an external source. Please treat this message with additional caution.] ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fpipermail%2Fpercy-l%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=XfC7cic65rm4ymcMNug%2B0i5pmKf%2BJaNoM7zlg%2FH9h%2FU%3D&reserved=0 * Manage Your Membership: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpercy-l&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=9Q3bnPoYfd2OBARKSecfmQiRP7qZKsewQN2GiBaj4t0%3D&reserved=0 * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibiblio.org%2Fwpercy&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=vrA7LTBbjJ5lMFvbs6qJWQEFInGNNbuAWzJRCZDE1HY%3D&reserved=0 ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Percy-L mailing list Percy-L at lists.ibiblio.org https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l ------------------------------ End of Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 21 **************************************** ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dabeck at iupui.edu Fri Aug 7 23:04:49 2020 From: dabeck at iupui.edu (Beck, David A) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 03:04:49 +0000 Subject: [percy-l] [External] Re: Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 21 In-Reply-To: <54D872BC-7DC6-449D-9007-AE35DE201F38@me.com> References: , <54D872BC-7DC6-449D-9007-AE35DE201F38@me.com> Message-ID: <1596855889624.96928@iupui.edu> Stephen, I agree. The listserv has become Facebook, another place to argue politics. I am probably to blame, for posting the O'Connor story. I apologize. If I knew it would start a Left vs. Right argument, I wouldn't have posted it. -David David Beck Senior Lecturer English Department Indiana University and Purdue University at Indianapolis 425 University Boulevard, CA 343-E Indianapolis, IN 46202 317-278-2550 ________________________________ From: Percy-L on behalf of Stephen Holmgren via Percy-L Sent: Friday, August 7, 2020 10:16 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Cc: Stephen Holmgren Subject: [External] Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 21 This message was sent from a non-IU address. Please exercise caution when clicking links or opening attachments from external sources. Hi: I thought this conversation medium was provided for opportunities to share reflection on Walker Percy?s writing and thought. The recent digressions into contemporary and or recent historical political observations and commentary are not helpful nor are they insightful. Let?s focus on Percy?s vision and work, and not on extraneous ?stuff? that is more likely to lead to argument (in the contemporary popular sense of combatting expressions of animus), rather than reasoned engagement with one another. Yes, there are a lot of bad ?thems? out there. We know less about ?them' than we do the bad ?me/us? that we are. And about that, Percy seemed to be most attentive and discerning. Thanks for the opportunity to participate in the continuing conversation here. Stephen Stephen Holmgren stephenholmgren at me.com blog: www.towardbeauty.org book: Ethics After Easter On Aug 7, 2020, at 9:56 PM, percy-l-request at lists.ibiblio.org wrote: Send Percy-L mailing list submissions to percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to percy-l-request at lists.ibiblio.org You can reach the person managing the list at percy-l-owner at lists.ibiblio.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Percy-L digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: A response to Janet Cantor (Karl M. Terrell) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 00:22:42 +0000 From: "Karl M. Terrell" To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" Subject: Re: [percy-l] A response to Janet Cantor Message-ID: <65A7D392-A2E3-452B-9187-079E36316EA2 at stokeswagner.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Well said, Karey. To your first point, the equivocation fallacy ? that Civil War & Reconstruction-era Republicans are not the same as the GOP of today ? it should be pointed out also that the ardent segregationists in the Democratic Party were almost exclusively Southern. In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran for President as a Dixiecrat, and then after 1964 he became a Republican. The rest of the Southern Democrats followed him out the door. This was an act of shameful protest in response to the passages of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 1965 and 1968. These newly minted Republicans then joined forces with the Goldwater / Nixon (Southern Strategy) / Reagan wing of the GOP. From that point forward, we witnessed the steady destruction of the moderate wing of the GOP (Rockefeller, Lodge, Ford and others). This leads me to respond to another erroneous point by Ms. Cantor: ?Tax cuts were never designed to drive up the deficit, but to spur growth of the economy which would bring more money into government, not less. When JFK passed his tax cuts, the economy got a big push and the government made more money.? Sorry, but ... this is just flat wrong (apart from her comment about JFK, addressed below). Two points: (1) I am sure Ms. Cantor is familiar with Grover Norquist, the influential architect & firebrand of GOP tax strategy. His mantra ? his guiding principle ? was ?starve the beast.? The promoted idea was smaller government, passed off as a bromide, but what really was afoot was an attack on the legitimacy of government. This attack was perfected by Reagan, who famously quipped the so-called ?most terrifying words? are (paraphrasing) ?I?m here from the government to help you.? In saying this, Reagan was playing crudely off the simplistic notion that government operations are perceived (generally) as not as efficient or as effective as for-profit businesses ? a fair enough observation, but one that wholly misses the point of the proper role that government, in fact, must play, if we are to have a just society that provides for all. It was all a front. The clear intent was to enrich the fat cats, and to undermine the social progress which had been set in motion by the Civil Rights Acts that the GOP Southerners despised, and that were perceived by the fat cats as too expensive. The end result, over the last 4 decades, has been wage stagnation and the near-virtual destruction of the middle class (as constructed in the 1950s). The resulting wealth inequality is staggering, and offensive. (2) So-called ?trickle-down economics? have been proven time and time again to be a failure. Yes, JFK?s tax cuts ? from the Eisenhower era of very high taxes ? benefitted the economy, and so did Reagan?s. But, regarding the latter, what current Republicans always ignore is the fact that Reagan subsequently raised taxes several times. The GOP, instead, has simply turned ?tax cuts? into an unthinking religion. Trump?s tax cut perhaps provided a brief sugar high for the economy, but his tax cut never delivered on the selling point ? that it would lead to job creation and better wages. There is simply no evidence of this. Yes, the economy grew from 2017 until the pandemic, but this growth (apart from the afore-mentioned ?sugar high?) was simply a continuation of the corrections made by the Obama administration to the failed economy of G.W. Bush. Obama?s improvements to the economy took clear hold in 2011 ? six years before Trump took office! The Trump tax cut simply enabled the big corporations to go on a binge of stock buybacks, and the uber-wealthy pocketed their windfall. The rich got rich and the poor ? maybe they didn?t get poorer between 2017 and 2020 ? but, to be sure, there were no advances in opportunity, nor any advances over the sad reality that huge numbers in this country live two paychecks away from bankruptcy. And stop calling the American left ?Marxists.? It?s just plain stupid to do so. The American economy has long been a mix of both capitalism and socialism, with capitalism plainly dominant ? and this will remain the case. Progressives are simply calling for a heavier thumb on the socialism side of the scale. This is necessary, and a clear majority of Americans agree ? on an issue-by-issue basis, as polls consistently show ? in order to correct the current injustices in our economy, and the current absence of opportunity for the betterment of vast numbers of Americans. The chickens are coming home to roost, Ms. Cantor. **** I recognize this has little to do with Percy ?as least not directly. That said, Ms. Cantor chose this forum for the spewing of her uninformed opinions. Inasmuch as she chose to swim here, she should not be surprised that critical thinkers will provide a swift counter current. Karl Montague Terrell Brevard, N.C. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 7, 2020, at 1:42 PM, Karey Perkins wrote: ? First of all, thank you once again, Wade, for your brilliant and comprehensive analysis of what?s going on. Each of your paragraphs could be expanded into an entire essay in and of itself. I?d like to respond but the scope of your topics and analysis make it so overwhelming that I just will say, kudos to you. Janet, there is much to respond to in what you wrote, but overall, you are very misinformed. Your facts are just plain incorrect. I cannot address every single point, so I will only address just three of your erroneous points, in order to make my point about your misinformation. I will also refer you to links that will help you to become more factually and correctly informed. #1, the Equivocation Fallacy: Republicans of the 1800s have absolutely nothing to do with the Republicans of today. That the past and the present Republican party bears the same name indicates absolutely nothing about its content nor its character nor its policies. To wit: The parties switched sides in the early 1900s. The Republican Party today foments and campaigns on racist policies and practices against both black and brown people, to the point that it has innocent children in concentration camps at the border, in horrific, inhumane conditions, more concerned about tracking raped girls periods to prevent them from having abortions than providing basic hygiene or tracking their parents to reunite families. (That?s just one example; there are literally hundreds of thousands more.). As for the early twentieth century switch and why, I?ll just leave a couple of links here to educate you as to the general historical background of the switch; there are far more out there for you t o read if you?d like to pursue this research: * https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html * https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south * https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a26985261/trump-administration-abortion-period-tracking-migrant-women/ #2, the Koch brothers decades-long stealth takeover of the United States government: Read Jane Mayers' Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires behind the Rise of the Radical Right. * https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/books/review/dark-money-by-jane-mayer.html * https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south #3, that BLM, antifa, and other leftist protesters are inciting violence: Almost all of the protests are peaceful demonstrators exercising their first amendment rights. Nor are these groups in any way at all ?anarchist? - they just don?t like the fascism and racism that is rising in our country. Antifa literally refers to being ?anti-fascist? and is ?a moniker, not a single group with an organizational structure or leader.? It is an adjective, not a noun. Right wing social media and right wing media are propagating the myth that these are groups are violent, yet evidence shows that white nationalists and opportunists have infiltrated the protests to instigate violence. Trump's failures on the economy and the pandemic has caused him to move to campaign as the ?law and order? president, but this too is failing as his ?secret police? (for example in Portland, where federal agents were unmarked and unnamed) are attacking and hooding and capturing unarmed peaceful protesters, pullin g them into unmarked vans, and the federal agents are the ones causing the violence themselves, against moms and Catholics. (They?ve since been driven out of Portland, and guess what? No more violence.). These feds are just another photo op for Trump, akin to his tear gassing peaceful protesters in order to walk across the street and raise a Bible (which I doubt Mr. Two Corinthians has ever opened) upside down outside of the Episcopal church in front of the White House. * https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/who-caused-violence-protests-its-not-antifa/ * https://www.voanews.com/usa/four-extremist-groups-suspected-involvement-protest-violence * https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-the-law-and-order-candidate-thats-a-laugh/2020/07/14/17037e86-c610-11ea-b037-f9711f89ee46_story.html * https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/508597-the-memo-trump-struggles-to-get-traction-with-law-and-order-message * https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/trump-getting-what-he-wants-portland/614635/ Your gross misinformation is because of the what?s happened to the media today ? which was supposed to be the fourth estate, part of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches? checks and balances on each other ? but has failed miserably at its job ever since the FCC Fairness Doctrine was repealed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#:~:text=The%20fairness%20doctrine%20of%20the,honest%2C%20equitable%2C%20and%20balanced. Because of that, news outlets of any source - TV, newspapers, magazines, internet ? can report anything they want. So we now have two completely different realities, and half of American live in one reality conveyed by one side of the aisle, while the other half lives in an entirely different reality conveyed by a different side of the aisle. Oh, wait, who said, fifty years ago, that that would happen? It has never been more important that Americans today have to be critical thinkers to evaluate news sources and information they come across to find out what the truth really is. But critical thinking and civics classes no longer exist in our high schools, so few Americans have any idea how to evaluate the media. Hence the great divide that Percy writes about - not just two sets of attitudes about the same set of facts, but completely different sets of facts, completely different realities entirely. My hope is that you will find better, more accurate sources, and become a better critical thinker concerning the constant bombardment of lies and misinformation that propagate in America. As for Lauren?s poem, I have another poem (there are many versions, here?s just one): First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me America is in a crisis. Percy would not have been quiet, and he wasn?t. He spoke out in his novels, even before this happened. Karey Karey Perkins, M.A., M.A.T., Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of English 296A Turner Hall, South Carolina State University Orangeburg, SC 29117 kperkin1 at scsu.edu | 803-536-7016 www.scsu.edu Member, Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-0002 kareperk at ttu.edu | http://www.pragmaticism.net On Aug 7, 2020, at 6:36 AM, janetcantor37--- via Percy-L > wrote: You opened so well. Federalist #10 is my favorite of the Federalist Papers. Then you fell into conclusions that do not match mine. I agree that pluralism as you describe it - belief in the ascendancy of our attachment to factions instead of love of the whole, patriotism, love of country - is not good. The trouble is when I look up the definition of pluralism, it is the opposite of how you describe it. So I am going to tell you how I read #10: Our country needed a strong central symbol, the flag, a president, so that our individual interests (factions) could never get big enough to disrupt or bring down the whole. If we wanted to be a "country", able to defend itself against outside mischief from other countries, we had to be unified. Pluralism entailed allowing individuals as well as states and individual interests to be protected from meddling or destruction, as long as those individuals did not break the country's laws. The colonies were worried that they had just left the King and wanted no parts of a president. So #10 tried to explain all about the protections we would put in place so individual interests and minorities would not fall prey to a new kind of tyranny. They would put in place protections of each state by having representations in a Senate where every colony - eventually state - would get the same representation no matter how small it was compared to the others. They would put in place a Court to interpret the law. And the constant tension among all of these entities would prevent a president from having too much power and individuals or groups with they interest from inciting confusions to bring down the whole, the U.S. The central power in the hands of a president having to contend with these safeguards against its controlling all the power would help keep all individual Americans safe. The larger the country, the more diverse the separate states, the more difficult it would be for a dictatorship to arise. The colonies became convinced and stopped fearing having a president. Again, you were doing so well, It is true that leftists of recent history love chopping us up into groups with grievances so they can better control us. Where you went astray is when you began describing the "seething resentment " of the right and its origins. There is no resentment in Republicans and other rightists here from having Civil Rights legislation shoved down "their throats". It was the Republicans throughout our history who instigated and helped bring about the end of slavery against the Democrats. It was the right which fought for integration. The KKK, those who fought to preserve slavery and prevent integration of schools were always in the Democrat Party. LBJ got lots of attention when he passed the Civil Rights act, but without the votes of Republicans in Congress, it would never have come to fruition. Tax cuts were never designed to drive up the deficit, but to spur growth of the economy which would bring more money into government, not less. When JFK passed his tax cuts, the economy got a big push and the government made more money. Yes, both sides promise heaven on earth. But if you look at the history from 1976 until today it is a series of democrats pulling the country away from capitalism and Republicans correcting their mistakes and fixing the country and then the sliding again when democrats win again. Taking power away from the central government to give us goodies or manage things is a good thing. Reagan fixed Carter's disastrous economy. Under Clinton we were headed back to catastrophe again until the 1994 Republican congress came in and fixed everything again, and then Clinton took credit for it, and that's okay, because at least he didn't get in the way. And I don't want to ruffle feathers, but recently the pattern began again. And until the plague hit us, we were coasting along in the best economy ever. Too much federal spending is terrible, I agree and both sides are guilty of that. Dismantling private property protection is lethally bad. We agree there. Oligarchs stealing from private citizens is a disease, yes. Taking power from individuals is dangerous. But we get more of these bad things every time we elect Democrats and this time the contrast couldn't be starker. I don't know about the Koch Brothers, but George Soros and the teachers unions have them beat when it comes to stealing power from individuals and placing it in the hands of government operators. Wages were going up, unemployment was virtually disappearing, and minorities of all kinds benefitted from these things the most. And then the pandemic struck and we were told were have to close down the economy. If this hadn't happened, we would have been in excellent economic shape. The chaos of now is a left wing phenomenon. These destructive mobs are avowed Marxists by their own definition. the graffiti and bringing down of statues and buildings and chaos and murder is all a left wing phenomenon these days - and BTW, occurring in cities run by progressive democrats. As for the left abandoning claims on material wealth and economic justice, where do you see that? It is in the Democrat party where you find the most rich who came into government with modest savings and left multi millionaires. Hillsdale College, which I would describe as closer to conservatism than liberalism as defined these days, does not deconstruct, does not elevate personal revelation above law or enable will to power movement. Hillsdale encourages individual responsibility. Lovers of safe spaces where nobody has to be overruled is a leftist phenomenon. Where are you finding in your George Zimmerman narrative that those three points you name are being forgotten by the Right? I call myself a rightist and those points seem just fine to me. Look how easy it is for two sides to see the same facts and come to completely different readings of what is going on. Of course, the big question is what would Percy make of it all these days? I am guessing he would hate what anarchist Marxists are doing to our cities, and attempting to do to our history, and our culture. We all should. I know that Percy would despair that things are not better. And I suspect he might find it very difficult to write those crazy fun house novels of his with their gorgeous endings. I suggest that each of us should settle down and set aside time to read the beautiful book by Wilfred McClay, Land of Hope. It clears up a lot of the confusion between Wade Riddick and me. And, borrowing from Ariel in The Tempest, it is so inspiring, it will make any reader cry if he is human. Janet Cantor On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:47 AM, Wade Riddick > wrote: What many people fail to understand is that both the Knotheads and the NOT-heads (i.e., "cancel culture") spring from the same toxic stew of sins: pluralism. Pluralism is the belief that we have rights not as citizens of countries but through the groups we belong to - race, gender, etc. The pluralists think democracy is useless and unless we bind together into our "group" we can't be represented. Leaving the group for another or disagreeing with your assigned "interest" is the deepest betrayal and provokes a backlash imminently Freudian in its ferocity. I haven't seen anything like it since I argued with the Communist Party cult remnants in graduate school about the value of money. They don't accept that "interests" cut across these boundaries. They don't want to see, for instance, that women have an interest in men graduating from college so they can have marriageable mates. They're an extension of the Zuckerberg computerization of our lives that wants to chop us up into interests so they can monetize us when we connect that way. NOT-heads aren't "almost angry" at the Constitution; they're in outright contempt of it because the founders were explicitly against this form of thinking. In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison warns that giving organized groups of people the same rights as actual individual citizens will destroy real rights for those citizens and enable factionalism. This type of group behavior has to be controlled or it will destroy the community of democracy. The knotheads are simply a different side of that tribalism - the Confederacy tribe. This other great enemy of democracy has been engaged in its own long war against federalism going back to the days of the first Confederacy. The anger you see on the "right" is seething resentment from having civil rights legislation shoved down their throats. Since the '70s, the Republican Party has been fueled by vendetta Dixiecrats fishing for ways to make the Federal government fail - first with Nixon's failed budget impoundment, then with tax cuts they hoped would drive up the deficit so high one day they could use it as an excuse to gut spending. ("We're finally bankrupt. Yay!") But every escalating disaster caused by their sabotage of government action - 9/11, credit default swap implosions, Hurricane Katerina, S&L crises - only increased demand for government action - because, as you see today, there's no other central actor in America that can handle crises of this magnitude. These two sides resemble one another because racism - tribal revenge - is a communicable disease, quickly mutualizing contempt when unchecked. Social media has brought us into one another's lives like never before and many of us can't stand what we see. (Maybe better digital fences would make better digital neighbors.) Contempt breeds contempt and without tolerance for one another, democratic compromise is impossible and we can't govern ourselves - which suits the short-term interests of the oligarchs just fine. They need to dismantle property protections (i.e., the justice system), if they're going to steal from us. What does this have to do with anything? When you leave groups on their own to organize, those with the most money oraganize the best. Sick people are probably the most important group in the country because when you become sick, you lose your autonomy and become dependent upon others. Sick people also have the least influence on the political system because all our time and money is tied up in being sick. Ditto for groups like the poor and unemployed - because you need resources to organize yourselves. Some interests can't organize themselves like this. That's the function of government - to organize and address the concerns of all citizens. What the NOT-heads fail to acknowledge is that their attitudes towards politics benefit the very oligarchs paying for us to hate each other. The insidious idea underlying pluralism is that these groups somehow "compete" with one another for "influence" over the government. That is, they bribe officials. This is what I mean when I say a coup took place at the Supreme Court level in the 1970s when unelected judges equated bribery of politicians with "free speech." If you want to see what the Koch Brother's perfect market in politics looks like, go visit Mexico today where every official is available for a price (or soon shot). That's the future that awaits us. So these two groups, lacking any pragmatic influence on positive agendas, can't govern. They can only veto, fume and fulminate. That's where we find ourselves. They both promise heaven on earth but can't even stop graffiti, much less a pandemic. Reality collides with these delusions and knocks followers into the same fatalistic flights of fancy that all failed charismatic cults descend into. Donald Trump becomes the Stokely Carmichael of white power and the Abbie Hoffman of the pandemic - gonna levitate that 'ronavirus with the good feelings of his mind ray. It's clear how the Confederacy keeps winding up in the same spot. It's more interesting how the Left fell into this heresy. Basically, in the '60s and '70s, Nixon destroyed the Left with targeted assassinations of Black Panther leadership, the War on Drugs, Cointelpro and other programs. The apparatus developed against democracy in Vietnam and Indonesia was reimported to "deradicalize" urban resistance to the new oil imperialist/banking oligarchy that you now see coming apart. This is why, today, we have such high incarceration rates: Jim Crow Part II. With both parties now locked down by bribery, unions getting dismantled and wages driven down, there was no room anymore for the Left outside academia and to succeed on the Left there, you had to abandon claims on material wealth and economic justice or you'd be dealt with too. Courses on Locke, Rousseau and Madison were shunted aside and restricted to graduate school - if available at all - so no uppity undergrads would ever have the gall to attack undemocratic militarism with democratic theory ever again. That forced the Left into a peculiarly sterile conversation about race and sex - not the underlying sources of injustice there that could never be questioned but rather on personal experience - to a fatalistically myopic degree. The end result of this is something called, bizarrely, Boasian antiracism . A similar defenestration of Christianity occurred on the right. It's considered "heresy" now to discuss the fact that Jesus wanted debt cancellation - when in fact the heresy is failing to point out that he did and that led to the crucifixion. Blame it all on the "Me Decade" of the '70s. Both the right and the left turned toward the personal, especially personal narrative and confessional - and new forms of communication gave them this power. Both sides fell prey to exaggerated doctrines of Deconstruction, elevating personal revelation above law, constitution and Gospel truth enabling the "will-to-power" movements common in fascism. Out went universal meaning and in swept wishy-washy relativism with "safe spaces" where nobody has to be overruled. Charismatic evangelicals (read: segregationists) substituted personal confession for Biblical truth. Witness George Zimmerman claiming it was part of God's plan he shoot an unarmed black boy walking home at night. The Right ate it up forgetting that 1) No greater love has a man than he gives up his life to save another (*not* takes another). 2) Do not be overcome by evil but rather overcome evil with good. 3) There is no fear in love. Love casts out fear. Zimmerman got out of the car that night armed with a gun because he was afraid he might die and unafraid to kill - pretty much the opposite of a Christian. But the anti-Christian charismatics ate it up in their culture war because he hated the right people. Of course, on the Left, these ironic contradictions abound too. When I heard Bruce Jenner confessing happiness at no longer having to lie to everybody, my first thought was, "He's admitting to cheating with steroids like I'm positive almost everybody in track and field at the Olympic level has been doing since the '50s?" No. My second thought was, "He's apologizing for giving people cancer and diabetes by selling us Wheaties?" Nope again. He's transgendered. Oh. How was that ever my business? What about all the people harmed by the cheating? Oh, well? In the future, we did get our fifteen minutes of fame and now we're all trapped in our own personality cults. We're one big self-published, unedited echo chamber of one. Ours is an era of personal narrative devoid of genuine readers. Reading takes kindness. Reading takes reflection and reflection is the enemy of sensationalist tweets. (Got to move those ads.) Bridging these islands of self presupposes an objective reality that can sustain us while we're "at sea" off your own island. I think Percy referred to this as the "intersubjective." But politically speaking, no man is an island. We can't be our own subjects of one, which was Madison's point. Substituting mob gangs does not give you a better form of government. We all fall prey to different heresies of perfection. Tech bros seem to think the world will become a perfect place with enough microchips thrown at it. (I've debugged too much code to believe that one.) The flip side of that is nasty too. Nostalgia is the enemy of forgiveness, which was a major theme of Percy's. Nostalgia imagines a perfect past. If the past was once perfect - or at least better - then the screwed up way things are today is unnecessary and we need no forgiveness. We just need to travel back in our memory to get there. But there's no one left showing us how fallible that memory is. Those critics disappeared in our flattened new perspective on life. We shouldn't idealize the past or despise it. Nor should we idealize the future. We should be, in our dire time of need, raging Pragmatists and radicalized moderates. Wade Riddick ------ Original Message ------ Received: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 10:43:12 AM EDT From: Ernest Hutton > To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 11 ? ?Hazel Motes (in Flannery O?Connor?s Wise Blood), searches for God by railing against organized religion. But in doing so, he prophesizes the authoritarian end-state pushed by today?s cancel culture: ?Where you come from is gone, where you thought you were going to never was there, and where you are is no good unless you can get away from it.? O?Connor had it right, and is now a victim of her own perspicacity. This reign of terror is destroying us all! Ernie Hutton Sent from my iPhone Ernest W Hutton Jr. FAICP Assoc AIA Hutton Associates Inc. New York/ Westhampton 917.836.7902 17 Woodbridge Lane, Quiogue Westhampton Beach NY 11978 On Aug 6, 2020, at 4:55 AM, Plemmons, Gregory > wrote: ? Patrick Connelly, a Percy scholar, spoke on Percy and race at one of the former Walker Percy Weekends. He commonly referenced a quote from Percy (I wish I knew the original source) about the eternal ?problem of human frailty trapped in historical circumstance?. That quote has stuck with me. It has echoes of Pompeii, especially as we seem to be entering a whole new era of cancel culture. The extreme left?s iconoclasm frightens me almost as much as that of the Knotheads. I wish people could devote more energy inward toward themselves and the current state of things. While dissecting the past will always have some merit, what are we ourselves going to be judged on, fifty years from now? Even five years from this pandemic? Percy was imperfect as the best of us, but he and his family also slept in their attic for two weeks after a bomb threat from the local Klan in 1969, after defending the removal of the Confederate flag from the principal?s office of the local high school. Zadie Smith took a stab recently attempting to answer the question of the purpose of fiction. ?Does it seem at all surprising in 2019...that we should have this hypersensitivity?... Whereas many more material issues?economic inequality, criminal justice reform, immigration?prove frighteningly intractable, language becomes the convenient battlefield.? Apologies for the long-winded rant. I read the New Yorker article. It taught me nothing new. Flannery was trapped as anyone. Her poor physical health is often overlooked. Lupus is a horrible disease and there were little options for treatment or even simple relief in her time. Again, ?historical circumstance?. I like to think if her disease hadn?t claimed her at 39, her views might have evolved, too. I guess we?ll never know. Gregory Plemmons, MD On Aug 5, 2020, at 7:17 PM, Charles Cowherd > wrote: ? Just to weigh in on the Flannery O?Connor/ Paul Elie scrum. At the seminary (Episcopal) that I attended, a professor had included the short story ?The Artificial N____? in his compendium of short stories matched up to the preaching lectionary. (Flannery O?Connor fiction is VERY popular in Episcopal circles.) A draft copy somehow was made available to my fellow students, who opposed the inclusion. There was a big townhall meeting, a student petition, eventually the professor/author agreed to remove the story. This was about 3 years ago. I offer that up merely as another tiny data point in whatever this particular moment is all about. I know that Walker Percy spoke on that short story specifically but cannot find it, it?s in CONVERSATIONS with WALKER PECY. I do think that it?s a topic that we can discuss on this forum with care and concern and kindness for one another. Also, I have been reading THE NEW YORKER all my life (?a wonderful Yankee magazine?- my Dad always would say!). Only with this article the magazine it reveal how detached it is, as a source of journalism, from the world. It reminded me of Percy?s dislike (too soft a word?) for Descartes. Instead, Percy believed we are all embodied creatures, fallen and stumbling in the world. Whereas the New Yorker writes an article with the title: ?How Racist was Flannery O?Connor?? without any source of social location of time and place. All my best, Charles Cowherd [ WARNING : This email came from an external source. Please treat this message with additional caution.] ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fpipermail%2Fpercy-l%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=XfC7cic65rm4ymcMNug%2B0i5pmKf%2BJaNoM7zlg%2FH9h%2FU%3D&reserved=0 * Manage Your Membership: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpercy-l&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=9Q3bnPoYfd2OBARKSecfmQiRP7qZKsewQN2GiBaj4t0%3D&reserved=0 * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibiblio.org%2Fwpercy&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=vrA7LTBbjJ5lMFvbs6qJWQEFInGNNbuAWzJRCZDE1HY%3D&reserved=0 ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Percy-L mailing list Percy-L at lists.ibiblio.org https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l ------------------------------ End of Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 21 **************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From janetcantor37 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 8 00:03:26 2020 From: janetcantor37 at yahoo.com (janetcantor37 at yahoo.com) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 04:03:26 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [percy-l] [External] Re: Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 21 In-Reply-To: <1596855889624.96928@iupui.edu> References: <54D872BC-7DC6-449D-9007-AE35DE201F38@me.com> <1596855889624.96928@iupui.edu> Message-ID: <145881000.118626.1596859407057@mail.yahoo.com> No!That was important.The rest of the back and forth I regret my part in and I have made a vow to myself. I will post on this site. But I will never debate with anyone again. Your post about O'Connor was appropriate and important. Janet Cantor On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 11:05 PM, Beck, David A wrote: Stephen, I agree. The listserv has become Facebook, another place to argue politics. I am probably to blame, for posting the O'Connor story. I apologize. If I knew it would start a Left vs. Right argument, I wouldn't have posted it. -David David Beck Senior Lecturer English Department Indiana University and Purdue University at Indianapolis 425 University Boulevard, CA 343-E Indianapolis, IN 46202 317-278-2550From: Percy-L on behalf of Stephen Holmgren via Percy-L Sent: Friday, August 7, 2020 10:16 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Cc: Stephen Holmgren Subject: [External] Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 21?This message was sent from a non-IU address. Please exercise caution when clicking links or opening attachments from external sources. Hi: I thought this conversation medium was provided for opportunities to share reflection on Walker Percy?s writing and thought. The recent digressions into contemporary and or recent historical political observations and commentary are not helpful nor are they insightful. Let?s focus on Percy?s vision and work, and not on extraneous ?stuff? that is more likely to lead to argument (in the contemporary popular sense of combatting expressions of animus), rather than reasoned engagement with one another. Yes, there are a lot of bad ?thems? out there. We know less about ?them' than we do the bad ?me/us? that we are. And about that, Percy seemed to be most attentive and discerning. Thanks for the opportunity to participate in the continuing conversation here. Stephen Stephen Holmgren stephenholmgren at me.comblog:?www.towardbeauty.orgbook:?Ethics After Easter On Aug 7, 2020, at 9:56 PM, percy-l-request at lists.ibiblio.org wrote: Send Percy-L mailing list submissions to percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to percy-l-request at lists.ibiblio.org You can reach the person managing the list at percy-l-owner at lists.ibiblio.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Percy-L digest..." Today's Topics: ??1. Re: A response to Janet Cantor (Karl M. Terrell) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 00:22:42 +0000 From: "Karl M. Terrell" To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" Subject: Re: [percy-l] A response to Janet Cantor Message-ID: <65A7D392-A2E3-452B-9187-079E36316EA2 at stokeswagner.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Well said, Karey. ?To your first point, the equivocation fallacy ? that Civil War & Reconstruction-era Republicans are not the same as the GOP of today ? it should be pointed out also that the ardent segregationists in the Democratic Party were almost exclusively Southern. In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran for President as a Dixiecrat, and then after 1964 he became a Republican. The rest of the Southern Democrats followed him out the door. This was an act of shameful protest in response to the passages of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 1965 and 1968. These newly minted Republicans then joined forces with the Goldwater / Nixon (Southern Strategy) / Reagan wing of the GOP. ?From that point forward, we witnessed the steady destruction of the moderate wing of the GOP (Rockefeller, Lodge, Ford and others). This leads me to respond to another erroneous point by Ms. Cantor: ?Tax cuts were never designed to drive up the deficit, but to spur growth of the economy which would bring more money into government, not less. When JFK passed his tax cuts, the economy got a big push and the government made more money.? Sorry, but ... this is just flat wrong (apart from her comment about JFK, addressed below). Two points: (1) I am sure Ms. Cantor is familiar with Grover Norquist, the influential architect & firebrand of GOP tax strategy. His mantra ? his guiding principle ? was ?starve the beast.? The promoted idea was smaller government, passed off as a bromide, but what really was afoot was an attack on the legitimacy of government. This attack was perfected by Reagan, who famously quipped the so-called ?most terrifying words? are (paraphrasing) ?I?m here from the government to help you.? In saying this, Reagan was playing crudely off the simplistic notion that government operations are perceived (generally) as not as efficient or as effective as for-profit businesses ? a fair enough observation, but one that wholly misses the point of the proper role that government, in fact, must play, if we are to have a just society that provides for all. It was all a front. The clear intent was to enrich the fat cats, and to undermine the social progress which had been set in motion by the Civil Rights Acts that the GOP Southerners despised, and that were perceived by the fat cats as too expensive. The end result, over the last 4 decades, has been wage stagnation and the near-virtual destruction of the middle class (as constructed in the 1950s). The resulting wealth inequality is staggering, and offensive. (2) ?So-called ?trickle-down economics? have been proven time and time again to be a failure. Yes, JFK?s tax cuts ? from the Eisenhower era of very high taxes ? benefitted the economy, and so did Reagan?s. But, regarding the latter, what current Republicans always ignore is the fact that Reagan subsequently raised taxes several times. The GOP, instead, has simply turned ?tax cuts? into an unthinking religion. Trump?s tax cut perhaps provided a brief sugar high for the economy, but his tax cut never delivered on the selling point ? that it would lead to job creation and better wages. There is simply no evidence of this. Yes, the economy grew from 2017 until the pandemic, but this growth (apart from the afore-mentioned ?sugar high?) was simply a continuation of the corrections made by the Obama administration to the failed economy of G.W. Bush. Obama?s improvements to the economy took clear hold in 2011 ? six years before Trump took office! The Trump tax cut simply enabled the big corporations to go on a binge of stock buybacks, and the uber-wealthy pocketed their windfall. The rich got rich and the poor ? maybe they didn?t get poorer between 2017 and 2020 ? but, to be sure, there were no advances in opportunity, nor any advances over the sad reality that huge numbers in this country live two paychecks away from bankruptcy. And stop calling the American left ?Marxists.? It?s just plain stupid to do so. The American economy has long been a mix of both capitalism and socialism, with capitalism plainly dominant ? and this will remain the case. Progressives are simply calling for a heavier thumb on the socialism side of the scale. This is necessary, and a clear majority of Americans agree ? on an issue-by-issue basis, as polls consistently show ? in order to correct the current injustices in our economy, and the current absence of opportunity for the betterment of vast numbers of Americans. The chickens are coming home to roost, Ms. Cantor. **** I recognize this has little to do with Percy ?as least not directly. That said, Ms. Cantor chose this forum for the spewing of her uninformed opinions. Inasmuch as she chose to swim here, she should not be surprised that critical thinkers will provide a swift counter current. Karl Montague Terrell Brevard, N.C. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 7, 2020, at 1:42 PM, Karey Perkins wrote: ? First of all, thank you once again, Wade, for your brilliant and comprehensive analysis of what?s going on. ?Each of your paragraphs could be expanded into an entire essay in and of itself. ?I?d like to respond but the scope of your topics and analysis make it so overwhelming that I just will say, kudos to you. Janet, there is much to respond to in what you wrote, but overall, you are very misinformed. Your facts are just plain incorrect. I cannot address every single point, so I will only address just three of your erroneous points, in order to make my point about your misinformation. ?I will also refer you to links that will help you to become more factually and correctly informed. #1, the Equivocation Fallacy: ?Republicans of the 1800s have absolutely nothing to do with the Republicans of today. ?That the past and the present Republican party bears the same name indicates absolutely nothing about its content nor its character nor its policies. ?To wit: The parties switched sides in the early 1900s. ?The Republican Party today foments and campaigns on racist policies and practices against both black and brown people, to the point that it has innocent children in concentration camps at the border, in horrific, inhumane conditions, more concerned about tracking raped girls periods to prevent them from having abortions than providing basic hygiene or tracking their parents to reunite families. ?(That?s just one example; there are literally hundreds of thousands more.). As for the early twentieth century switch and why, I?ll just leave a couple of links here to educate you as to the general historical background of the switch; there are far more out there for you t o read if you?d like to pursue this research: ?* ??https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html ?* ??https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south ?* ??https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a26985261/trump-administration-abortion-period-tracking-migrant-women/ #2, the Koch brothers decades-long stealth takeover of the United States government: ?Read Jane Mayers' Dark Money: ?The Hidden History of the Billionaires behind the Rise of the Radical Right. ?* ??https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/books/review/dark-money-by-jane-mayer.html ?* ??https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south #3, that BLM, antifa, and other leftist protesters are inciting violence: ?Almost all of the protests are peaceful demonstrators exercising their first amendment rights. ??Nor are these groups in any way at all ?anarchist? - they just don?t like the fascism and racism that is rising in our country. ?Antifa literally refers to being ?anti-fascist? and is ?a moniker, not a single group with an organizational structure or leader.? ?It is an adjective, not a noun. ?Right wing social media and right wing media are propagating the myth that these are groups are violent, yet evidence shows that white nationalists and opportunists have infiltrated the protests to instigate violence. Trump's failures on the economy and the pandemic has caused him to move to campaign as the ?law and order? president, but this too is failing as his ?secret police? (for example in Portland, where federal agents were unmarked and unnamed) are attacking and hooding and capturing unarmed peaceful protesters, pullin g them into unmarked vans, and the federal agents are the ones causing the violence themselves, against moms and Catholics. ?(They?ve since been driven out of Portland, and guess what? No more violence.). These feds are just another photo op for Trump, akin to his tear gassing peaceful protesters in order to walk across the street and raise a Bible (which I doubt Mr. Two Corinthians has ever opened) upside down outside of the Episcopal church in front of the White House. ?* ??https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/who-caused-violence-protests-its-not-antifa/ ?* ??https://www.voanews.com/usa/four-extremist-groups-suspected-involvement-protest-violence ?* ??https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-the-law-and-order-candidate-thats-a-laugh/2020/07/14/17037e86-c610-11ea-b037-f9711f89ee46_story.html ?* ??https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/508597-the-memo-trump-struggles-to-get-traction-with-law-and-order-message ?* ??https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/trump-getting-what-he-wants-portland/614635/ Your gross misinformation is because of the what?s happened to the media today ? which was supposed to be the fourth estate, part of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches? checks and balances on each other ? but has failed miserably at its job ever since the FCC Fairness Doctrine was repealed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#:~:text=The%20fairness%20doctrine%20of%20the,honest%2C%20equitable%2C%20and%20balanced. Because of that, news outlets of any source - TV, newspapers, magazines, internet ? can report anything they want. ?So we now have two completely different realities, and half of American live in one reality conveyed by one side of the aisle, while the other half lives in an entirely different reality conveyed by a different side of the aisle. Oh, wait, who said, fifty years ago, that that would happen? It has never been more important that Americans today have to be critical thinkers to evaluate news sources and information they come across to find out what the truth really is. ?But critical thinking and civics classes no longer exist in our high schools, so few Americans have any idea how to evaluate the media. ?Hence the great divide that Percy writes about - not just two sets of attitudes about the same set of facts, but completely different sets of facts, completely different realities entirely. My hope is that you will find better, more accurate sources, and become a better critical thinker concerning the constant bombardment of lies and misinformation that propagate in America. As for Lauren?s poem, I have another poem (there are many versions, here?s just one): First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me America is in a crisis. ?Percy would not have been quiet, and he wasn?t. He spoke out in his novels, even before this happened. Karey Karey Perkins, M.A., M.A.T., Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of English 296A Turner Hall, South Carolina State University Orangeburg, SC 29117 kperkin1 at scsu.edu | 803-536-7016 www.scsu.edu Member, Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX ?79409-0002 kareperk at ttu.edu | http://www.pragmaticism.net On Aug 7, 2020, at 6:36 AM, janetcantor37--- via Percy-L > wrote: You opened so well. Federalist #10 is my favorite of the Federalist Papers. Then you fell into conclusions that do not match mine. I agree that pluralism as you describe it - belief in the ascendancy of our attachment to factions instead of love of the whole, patriotism, love of country - is not good. The trouble is when I look up the definition of pluralism, it is the opposite of how you describe it. So I am going to tell you how I read #10: Our country needed a strong central symbol, the flag, a president, so that our individual interests (factions) could never get big enough to disrupt or bring down the whole. If we wanted to be a "country", able to defend itself against outside mischief from other countries, we had to be unified. Pluralism entailed allowing individuals as well as states and individual interests to be protected from meddling or destruction, as long as those individuals did not break the country's laws. The colonies were worried that they had just left the King and wanted no parts of a president. So #10 tried to explain all about the protections we would put in place so individual interests and minorities would not fall prey ?to a new kind of tyranny. They would put in place protections of each state by having representations in a Senate where every colony - eventually state - would get the same representation no matter how small it was compared to the others. They would put in place a Court to interpret the law. And the constant tension among all of these entities would prevent a president from having too much power and individuals or groups with they interest from inciting confusions to bring down the whole, the U.S. The central power in the hands of a president having to contend with these safeguards against its controlling all the power would help keep all individual Americans safe. The larger the country, the more diverse the separate states, the more difficult it would be for a dictatorship to arise. The colonies became convinced and stopped fearing having a president. Again, you were doing so well, It is true that leftists of recent history love chopping us up into groups with grievances so they can better control us. Where you went astray is when you began describing the "seething resentment " of the right and its origins. There is no resentment in Republicans and other rightists here from having Civil Rights legislation shoved down "their throats". It was the Republicans throughout our history who instigated and helped bring about the end of slavery against the Democrats. It was the right which fought for integration. The KKK, those who fought to preserve slavery and prevent integration of schools were always in the Democrat Party. LBJ got lots of attention when he passed the Civil Rights act, but without the votes of Republicans in Congress, it would never have come to fruition. Tax cuts were never designed to drive up the deficit, but to spur growth of the economy which would bring more money into government, not less. When JFK passed his tax cuts, the economy got a big push and the government made more money. Yes, both sides promise heaven on earth. But if you look at the history from 1976 until today it is a series of democrats pulling the country away from capitalism and Republicans correcting their mistakes and fixing the country and then the sliding again when democrats win again. Taking power away from the central government to give us goodies or manage things is a good thing. Reagan fixed Carter's disastrous economy. Under Clinton we were headed back to catastrophe again until the 1994 Republican congress came in and fixed everything again, and then Clinton took credit for it, and that's okay, because at least he didn't get in the way. And I don't want to ruffle feathers, but recently the pattern began again. And until the plague hit us, we were coasting along in the best economy ever. Too much federal spending is terrible, I agree and both sides are guilty of that. Dismantling private property protection is lethally bad. We agree there. Oligarchs stealing from private citizens is a disease, yes. Taking power from individuals is dangerous. But we get more of these bad things every time we elect Democrats and this time the contrast couldn't be starker. I don't know about the Koch Brothers, but George Soros and the teachers unions have them beat when it comes to stealing power from individuals and placing it in the hands of government operators. Wages were going up, unemployment was virtually disappearing, and minorities of all kinds benefitted from these things the most. And then the pandemic struck and we were told were have to close down the economy. If this hadn't happened, we would have been in excellent economic shape. The chaos of now is a left wing phenomenon. These destructive mobs are avowed Marxists by their own definition. the graffiti and bringing down of statues and buildings and chaos and murder is all a left wing phenomenon these days - and BTW, occurring in cities run by progressive democrats. As for the left abandoning claims on material wealth and economic justice, where do you see that? It is in the Democrat party where you find the most rich who came into government with modest savings and left multi millionaires. Hillsdale College, which I would describe as closer to conservatism than liberalism as defined these days, does not deconstruct, does not elevate personal revelation above law or enable will to power movement. Hillsdale encourages individual responsibility. Lovers of safe spaces where nobody has to be overruled is a leftist phenomenon. Where are you finding in your George Zimmerman narrative that those three points you name are being forgotten by the Right? I call myself a rightist and those points seem just fine to me. Look how easy it is for two sides to see the same facts and come to completely different readings of what is going on. Of course, the big question is what would Percy make of it all these days? I am guessing he would hate what anarchist Marxists are doing to our cities, and attempting to do to our history, and our culture. We all should. I know that Percy would despair that things are not better. And I suspect he might find it very difficult to write those crazy fun house novels of his with their gorgeous endings. I suggest that each of us should settle down and set aside time to read the beautiful book by Wilfred McClay, Land of Hope. It clears up a lot of the confusion between Wade Riddick and me. And, borrowing from Ariel in The Tempest, it is so inspiring, it will make any reader cry if he is human. Janet Cantor On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:47 AM, Wade Riddick > wrote: What many people fail to understand is that both the Knotheads and the NOT-heads (i.e., "cancel culture") spring from the same toxic stew of sins: pluralism. Pluralism is the belief that we have rights not as citizens of countries but through the groups we belong to - race, gender, etc. ?The pluralists think democracy is useless and unless we bind together into our "group" we can't be represented. ?Leaving the group for another or disagreeing with your assigned "interest" is the deepest betrayal and provokes a backlash imminently Freudian in its ferocity. ?I haven't seen anything like it since I argued with the Communist Party cult remnants in graduate school about the value of money. They don't accept that "interests" cut across these boundaries. ?They don't want to see, for instance, that women have an interest in men graduating from college so they can have marriageable mates. ?They're an extension of the Zuckerberg computerization of our lives that wants to chop us up into interests so they can monetize us when we connect that way. NOT-heads aren't "almost angry" at the Constitution; they're in outright contempt of it because the founders were explicitly against this form of thinking. ?In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison warns that giving organized groups of people the same rights as actual individual citizens will destroy real rights for those citizens and enable factionalism. ?This type of group behavior has to be controlled or it will destroy the community of democracy. The knotheads are simply a different side of that tribalism - the Confederacy tribe. ?This other great enemy of democracy has been engaged in its own long war against federalism going back to the days of the first Confederacy. ?The anger you see on the "right" is seething resentment from having civil rights legislation shoved down their throats. ?Since the '70s, the Republican Party has been fueled by vendetta Dixiecrats fishing for ways to make the Federal government fail - first with Nixon's failed budget impoundment, then with tax cuts they hoped would drive up the deficit so high one day they could use it as an excuse to gut spending. ?("We're finally bankrupt. ?Yay!") ?But every escalating disaster caused by their sabotage of government action - 9/11, credit default swap implosions, Hurricane Katerina, S&L crises - only increased demand for government action - because, as you see today, there's no other central actor in America that can handle crises of this magnitude. These two sides resemble one another because racism - tribal revenge - is a communicable disease, quickly mutualizing contempt when unchecked. ?Social media has brought us into one another's lives like never before and many of us can't stand what we see. (Maybe better digital fences would make better digital neighbors.) ?Contempt breeds contempt and without tolerance for one another, democratic compromise is impossible and we can't govern ourselves - which suits the short-term interests of the oligarchs just fine. ?They need to dismantle property protections (i.e., the justice system), if they're going to steal from us. What does this have to do with anything? When you leave groups on their own to organize, those with the most money oraganize the best. ?Sick people are probably the most important group in the country because when you become sick, you lose your autonomy and become dependent upon others. ?Sick people also have the least influence on the political system because all our time and money is tied up in being sick. Ditto for groups like the poor and unemployed - because you need resources to organize yourselves. ?Some interests can't organize themselves like this. That's the function of government - to organize and address the concerns of all citizens. What the NOT-heads fail to acknowledge is that their attitudes towards politics benefit the very oligarchs paying for us to hate each other. ?The insidious idea underlying pluralism is that these groups somehow "compete" with one another for "influence" over the government. ?That is, they bribe officials. ?This is what I mean when I say a coup took place at the Supreme Court level in the 1970s when unelected judges equated bribery of politicians with "free speech." ?If you want to see what the Koch Brother's perfect market in politics looks like, go visit Mexico today where every official is available for a price (or soon shot). ?That's the future that awaits us. So these two groups, lacking any pragmatic influence on positive agendas, can't govern. ?They can only veto, fume and fulminate. ?That's where we find ourselves. ?They both promise heaven on earth but can't even stop graffiti, much less a pandemic. ?Reality collides with these delusions and knocks followers into the same fatalistic flights of fancy that all failed charismatic cults descend into. ?Donald Trump becomes the Stokely Carmichael of white power and the Abbie Hoffman of the pandemic - gonna levitate that 'ronavirus with the good feelings of his mind ray. It's clear how the Confederacy keeps winding up in the same spot. ?It's more interesting how the Left fell into this heresy. ?Basically, in the '60s and '70s, Nixon destroyed the Left with targeted assassinations of Black Panther leadership, the War on Drugs, Cointelpro and other programs. ?The apparatus developed against democracy in Vietnam and Indonesia was reimported to "deradicalize" urban resistance to the new oil imperialist/banking oligarchy that you now see coming apart. ?This is why, today, we have such high incarceration rates: Jim Crow Part II. With both parties now locked down by bribery, unions getting dismantled and wages driven down, there was no room anymore for the Left outside academia and to succeed on the Left there, you had to abandon claims on material wealth and economic justice or you'd be dealt with too. ?Courses on Locke, Rousseau and Madison were shunted aside and restricted to graduate school - if available at all - so no uppity undergrads would ever have the gall to attack undemocratic militarism with democratic theory ever again. ?That forced the Left into a peculiarly sterile conversation about race and sex - not the underlying sources of injustice there that could never be questioned but rather on personal experience - to a fatalistically myopic degree. ?The end result of this is something called, bizarrely, Boasian antiracism . A similar defenestration of Christianity occurred on the right. ?It's considered "heresy" now to discuss the fact that Jesus wanted debt cancellation - when in fact the heresy is failing to point out that he did and that led to the crucifixion. Blame it all on the "Me Decade" of the '70s. ?Both the right and the left turned toward the personal, especially personal narrative and confessional - and new forms of communication gave them this power. ?Both sides fell prey to exaggerated doctrines of Deconstruction, elevating personal revelation above law, constitution and Gospel truth enabling the "will-to-power" movements common in fascism. ?Out went universal meaning and in swept wishy-washy relativism with "safe spaces" where nobody has to be overruled. Charismatic evangelicals (read: segregationists) substituted personal confession for Biblical truth. ?Witness George Zimmerman claiming it was part of God's plan he shoot an unarmed black boy walking home at night. ?The Right ate it up forgetting that 1) ?No greater love has a man than he gives up his life to save another (*not* takes another). 2) ?Do not be overcome by evil but rather overcome evil with good. 3) ?There is no fear in love. ?Love casts out fear. Zimmerman got out of the car that night armed with a gun because he was afraid he might die and unafraid to kill - pretty much the opposite of a Christian. But the anti-Christian charismatics ate it up in their culture war because he hated the right people. Of course, on the Left, these ironic contradictions abound too. When I heard Bruce Jenner confessing happiness at no longer having to lie to everybody, my first thought was, "He's admitting to cheating with steroids like I'm positive almost everybody in track and field at the Olympic level has been doing since the '50s?" No. My second thought was, "He's apologizing for giving people cancer and diabetes by selling us Wheaties?" Nope again. He's transgendered. Oh. How was that ever my business? What about all the people harmed by the cheating? Oh, well? In the future, we did get our fifteen minutes of fame and now we're all trapped in our own personality cults. ?We're one big self-published, unedited echo chamber of one. ?Ours is an era of personal narrative devoid of genuine readers. ?Reading takes kindness. ?Reading takes reflection and reflection is the enemy of sensationalist tweets. ?(Got to move those ads.) ?Bridging these islands of self presupposes an objective reality that can sustain us while we're "at sea" off your own island. ?I think Percy referred to this as the "intersubjective." But politically speaking, no man is an island. ?We can't be our own subjects of one, which was Madison's point. ?Substituting mob gangs does not give you a better form of government. We all fall prey to different heresies of perfection. ?Tech bros seem to think the world will become a perfect place with enough microchips thrown at it. (I've debugged too much code to believe that one.) ?The flip side of that is nasty too. ?Nostalgia is the enemy of forgiveness, which was a major theme of Percy's. ?Nostalgia imagines a perfect past. ?If the past was once perfect - or at least better - then the screwed up way things are today is unnecessary and we need no forgiveness. ?We just need to travel back in our memory to get there. But there's no one left showing us how fallible that memory is. ?Those critics disappeared in our flattened new perspective on life. We shouldn't idealize the past or despise it. ?Nor should we idealize the future. ?We should be, in our dire time of need, raging Pragmatists and radicalized moderates. Wade Riddick ------ Original Message ------ Received: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 10:43:12 AM EDT From: Ernest Hutton > To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 11 ? ?Hazel Motes (in Flannery O?Connor?s Wise Blood), searches for God by railing against organized religion. But in doing so, he prophesizes the authoritarian end-state pushed by today?s cancel culture: ??Where you come from is gone, where you thought you were going to never was there, and where you are is no good unless you can get away from it.? O?Connor had it right, and is now a victim of her own perspicacity. This reign of terror is destroying us all! Ernie Hutton Sent from my iPhone Ernest W Hutton Jr. FAICP Assoc AIA Hutton Associates Inc. New York/ Westhampton 917.836.7902 17 Woodbridge Lane, Quiogue Westhampton Beach NY 11978 On Aug 6, 2020, at 4:55 AM, Plemmons, Gregory > wrote: ? Patrick Connelly, a Percy scholar, spoke on Percy and race at one of the former Walker Percy Weekends. He commonly referenced a quote from Percy (I wish I knew the original source) about the eternal ?problem of human frailty trapped in historical circumstance?. That quote has stuck with me. It has echoes of Pompeii, especially as we seem to be entering a whole new era of cancel culture. The extreme left?s iconoclasm frightens me almost as much as that of the Knotheads. I wish people could devote more energy inward toward themselves and the current state of things. While dissecting the past will always have some merit, what are we ourselves going to be judged on, fifty years from now? Even five years from this pandemic? Percy was imperfect as the best of us, but he and his family also slept in their attic for two weeks after a bomb threat from the local Klan in 1969, after defending the removal of the Confederate flag from the principal?s office of the local high school. Zadie Smith took a stab recently attempting to answer the question of the purpose of fiction. ?Does it seem at all surprising in 2019...that we should have this hypersensitivity?... Whereas many more material issues?economic inequality, criminal justice reform, immigration?prove frighteningly intractable, language becomes the convenient battlefield.? Apologies for the long-winded rant. I read the New Yorker article. It taught me nothing new. Flannery was trapped as anyone. Her poor physical health is often overlooked. Lupus is a horrible disease and there were little options for treatment or even simple relief in her time. Again, ?historical circumstance?. I like to think if her disease hadn?t claimed her at 39, her views might have evolved, too. I guess we?ll never know. Gregory Plemmons, MD On Aug 5, 2020, at 7:17 PM, Charles Cowherd > wrote: ? Just to weigh in on the Flannery O?Connor/ Paul Elie scrum. At the seminary (Episcopal) that I attended, a professor had included the short story ?The Artificial N____? in his compendium of short stories matched up to the preaching lectionary. (Flannery O?Connor fiction is VERY popular in Episcopal circles.) A draft copy somehow was made available to my fellow students, who opposed the inclusion. There was a big townhall meeting, a student petition, eventually the professor/author agreed to remove the story. This was about 3 years ago. I offer that up merely as another tiny data point in whatever this particular moment is all about. I know that Walker Percy spoke on that short story specifically but cannot find it, it?s in CONVERSATIONS with WALKER PECY. I do think that it?s a topic that we can discuss on this forum with care and concern and kindness for one another. Also, I have been reading THE NEW YORKER all my life (?a wonderful Yankee magazine?- my Dad always would say!). Only with this article the magazine it reveal how detached it is, as a source of journalism, from the world. It reminded me of Percy?s dislike (too soft a word?) for Descartes. Instead, Percy believed we are all embodied creatures, fallen and stumbling in the world. Whereas the New Yorker writes an article with the title: ??How Racist was Flannery O?Connor?? without any source of social location of time and place. All my best, Charles Cowherd [ WARNING : This email came from an external source. Please treat this message with additional caution.] ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fpipermail%2Fpercy-l%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=XfC7cic65rm4ymcMNug%2B0i5pmKf%2BJaNoM7zlg%2FH9h%2FU%3D&reserved=0 * Manage Your Membership: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpercy-l&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=9Q3bnPoYfd2OBARKSecfmQiRP7qZKsewQN2GiBaj4t0%3D&reserved=0 * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibiblio.org%2Fwpercy&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=vrA7LTBbjJ5lMFvbs6qJWQEFInGNNbuAWzJRCZDE1HY%3D&reserved=0 ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Percy-L mailing list Percy-L at lists.ibiblio.org https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l ------------------------------ End of Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 21 **************************************** ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Untitled URL: From wriddick at usa.net Sat Aug 8 01:05:38 2020 From: wriddick at usa.net (Wade Riddick) Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2020 01:05:38 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] A response to Janet Cantor Message-ID: <385yHHFeM0336Set.1596863138@web02.cms.usa.net> Well said. Thank you for sparing me the time and effort to address this. There is no punishment in the South quite like knowing too much history. I suppose Faulkner was right about the past not even being past yet. Wade Riddick P.S., it is quite related to Percy. This glass grinding in the brain is the source of the self-rightious anger in Lancelot. And on the far "Left." I seem to remember this being a plot point in _Love in the Ruins_, the source of commonality between the Knotheads and swamp-dwelling black radicals who hated each other. ------ Original Message ------ Received: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 09:57:12 PM EDT From: "Karl M. Terrell" To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" Subject: Re: [percy-l] A response to Janet Cantor Well said, Karey. To your first point, the equivocation fallacy ? that Civil War & Reconstruction-era Republicans are not the same as the GOP of today ? it should be pointed out also that the ardent segregationists in the Democratic Party were almost exclusively Southern. In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran for President as a Dixiecrat, and then after 1964 he became a Republican. The rest of the Southern Democrats followed him out the door. This was an act of shameful protest in response to the passages of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 1965 and 1968. These newly minted Republicans then joined forces with the Goldwater / Nixon (Southern Strategy) / Reagan wing of the GOP. From that point forward, we witnessed the steady destruction of the moderate wing of the GOP (Rockefeller, Lodge, Ford and others). This leads me to respond to another erroneous point by Ms. Cantor: ?Tax cuts were never designed to drive up the deficit, but to spur growth of the economy which would bring more money into government, not less. When JFK passed his tax cuts, the economy got a big push and the government made more money.? Sorry, but ... this is just flat wrong (apart from her comment about JFK, addressed below). Two points: (1) I am sure Ms. Cantor is familiar with Grover Norquist, the influential architect & firebrand of GOP tax strategy. His mantra ? his guiding principle ? was ?starve the beast.? The promoted idea was smaller government, passed off as a bromide, but what really was afoot was an attack on the legitimacy of government. This attack was perfected by Reagan, who famously quipped the so-called ?most terrifying words? are (paraphrasing) ?I?m here from the government to help you.? In saying this, Reagan was playing crudely off the simplistic notion that government operations are perceived (generally) as not as efficient or as effective as for-profit businesses ? a fair enough observation, but one that wholly misses the point of the proper role that government, in fact, must play, if we are to have a just society that provides for all. It was all a front. The clear intent was to enrich the fat cats, and to undermine the social progress which had been set in motion by the Civil Rights Acts that the GOP Southerners despised, and that were perceived by the fat cats as too expensive. The end result, over the last 4 decades, has been wage stagnation and the near-virtual destruction of the middle class (as constructed in the 1950s). The resulting wealth inequality is staggering, and offensive. (2) So-called ?trickle-down economics? have been proven time and time again to be a failure. Yes, JFK?s tax cuts ? from the Eisenhower era of very high taxes ? benefitted the economy, and so did Reagan?s. But, regarding the latter, what current Republicans always ignore is the fact that Reagan subsequently raised taxes several times. The GOP, instead, has simply turned ?tax cuts? into an unthinking religion. Trump?s tax cut perhaps provided a brief sugar high for the economy, but his tax cut never delivered on the selling point ? that it would lead to job creation and better wages. There is simply no evidence of this. Yes, the economy grew from 2017 until the pandemic, but this growth (apart from the afore-mentioned ?sugar high?) was simply a continuation of the corrections made by the Obama administration to the failed economy of G.W. Bush. Obama?s improvements to the economy took clear hold in 2011 ? six years before Trump took office! The Trump tax cut simply enabled the big corporations to go on a binge of stock buybacks, and the uber-wealthy pocketed their windfall. The rich got rich and the poor ? maybe they didn?t get poorer between 2017 and 2020 ? but, to be sure, there were no advances in opportunity, nor any advances over the sad reality that huge numbers in this country live two paychecks away from bankruptcy. And stop calling the American left ?Marxists.? It?s just plain stupid to do so. The American economy has long been a mix of both capitalism and socialism, with capitalism plainly dominant ? and this will remain the case. Progressives are simply calling for a heavier thumb on the socialism side of the scale. This is necessary, and a clear majority of Americans agree ? on an issue-by-issue basis, as polls consistently show ? in order to correct the current injustices in our economy, and the current absence of opportunity for the betterment of vast numbers of Americans. The chickens are coming home to roost, Ms. Cantor. **** I recognize this has little to do with Percy ?as least not directly. That said, Ms. Cantor chose this forum for the spewing of her uninformed opinions. Inasmuch as she chose to swim here, she should not be surprised that critical thinkers will provide a swift counter current. Karl Montague Terrell Brevard, N.C. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 7, 2020, at 1:42 PM, Karey Perkins wrote: ? First of all, thank you once again, Wade, for your brilliant and comprehensive analysis of what?s going on. Each of your paragraphs could be expanded into an entire essay in and of itself. I?d like to respond but the scope of your topics and analysis make it so overwhelming that I just will say, kudos to you. Janet, there is much to respond to in what you wrote, but overall, you are very misinformed. Your facts are just plain incorrect. I cannot address every single point, so I will only address just three of your erroneous points, in order to make my point about your misinformation. I will also refer you to links that will help you to become more factually and correctly informed. #1, the Equivocation Fallacy: Republicans of the 1800s have absolutely nothing to do with the Republicans of today. That the past and the present Republican party bears the same name indicates absolutely nothing about its content nor its character nor its policies. To wit: The parties switched sides in the early 1900s. The Republican Party today foments and campaigns on racist policies and practices against both black and brown people, to the point that it has innocent children in concentration camps at the border, in horrific, inhumane conditions, more concerned about tracking raped girls periods to prevent them from having abortions than providing basic hygiene or tracking their parents to reunite families. (That?s just one example; there are literally hundreds of thousands more.). As for the early twentieth century switch and why, I?ll just leave a couple of links here to educate you as to the general historical background of the switch; there are far more out there for you to read if you?d like to pursue this research: * https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html * https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south * https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a26985261/trump-administration-abortion-period-tracking-migrant-women/ #2, the Koch brothers decades-long stealth takeover of the United States government: Read Jane Mayers' Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires behind the Rise of the Radical Right. * https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/books/review/dark-money-by-jane-mayer.html * https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south #3, that BLM, antifa, and other leftist protesters are inciting violence: Almost all of the protests are peaceful demonstrators exercising their first amendment rights. Nor are these groups in any way at all ?anarchist? - they just don?t like the fascism and racism that is rising in our country. Antifa literally refers to being ?anti-fascist? and is ?a moniker, not a single group with an organizational structure or leader.? It is an adjective, not a noun. Right wing social media and right wing media are propagating the myth that these are groups are violent, yet evidence shows that white nationalists and opportunists have infiltrated the protests to instigate violence. Trump's failures on the economy and the pandemic has caused him to move to campaign as the ?law and order? president, but this too is failing as his ?secret police? (for example in Portland, where federal agents were unmarked and unnamed) are attacking and hooding and capturing unarmed peaceful protesters, pulling them into unmarked vans, and the federal agents are the ones causing the violence themselves, against moms and Catholics. (They?ve since been driven out of Portland, and guess what? No more violence.). These feds are just another photo op for Trump, akin to his tear gassing peaceful protesters in order to walk across the street and raise a Bible (which I doubt Mr. Two Corinthians has ever opened) upside down outside of the Episcopal church in front of the White House. * https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/who-caused-violence-protests-its-not-antifa/ * https://www.voanews.com/usa/four-extremist-groups-suspected-involvement-protest-violence * https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-the-law-and-order-candidate-thats-a-laugh/2020/07/14/17037e86-c610-11ea-b037-f9711f89ee46_story.html * https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/508597-the-memo-trump-struggles-to-get-traction-with-law-and-order-message * https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/trump-getting-what-he-wants-portland/614635/ Your gross misinformation is because of the what?s happened to the media today ? which was supposed to be the fourth estate, part of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches? checks and balances on each other ? but has failed miserably at its job ever since the FCC Fairness Doctrine was repealed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#:~:text=The%20fairness%20doctrine%20of%20the,honest%2C%20equitable%2C%20and%20balanced. Because of that, news outlets of any source - TV, newspapers, magazines, internet ? can report anything they want. So we now have two completely different realities, and half of American live in one reality conveyed by one side of the aisle, while the other half lives in an entirely different reality conveyed by a different side of the aisle. Oh, wait, who said, fifty years ago, that that would happen? It has never been more important that Americans today have to be critical thinkers to evaluate news sources and information they come across to find out what the truth really is. But critical thinking and civics classes no longer exist in our high schools, so few Americans have any idea how to evaluate the media. Hence the great divide that Percy writes about - not just two sets of attitudes about the same set of facts, but completely different sets of facts, completely different realities entirely. My hope is that you will find better, more accurate sources, and become a better critical thinker concerning the constant bombardment of lies and misinformation that propagate in America. As for Lauren?s poem, I have another poem (there are many versions, here?s just one): First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me America is in a crisis. Percy would not have been quiet, and he wasn?t. He spoke out in his novels, even before this happened. Karey Karey Perkins, M.A., M.A.T., Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of English 296A Turner Hall, South Carolina State University Orangeburg, SC 29117 kperkin1 at scsu.edu | 803-536-7016 www.scsu.edu Member, Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-0002 kareperk at ttu.edu | http://www.pragmaticism.net On Aug 7, 2020, at 6:36 AM, janetcantor37--- via Percy-L > wrote: You opened so well. Federalist #10 is my favorite of the Federalist Papers. Then you fell into conclusions that do not match mine. I agree that pluralism as you describe it - belief in the ascendancy of our attachment to factions instead of love of the whole, patriotism, love of country - is not good. The trouble is when I look up the definition of pluralism, it is the opposite of how you describe it. So I am going to tell you how I read #10: Our country needed a strong central symbol, the flag, a president, so that our individual interests (factions) could never get big enough to disrupt or bring down the whole. If we wanted to be a "country", able to defend itself against outside mischief from other countries, we had to be unified. Pluralism entailed allowing individuals as well as states and individual interests to be protected from meddling or destruction, as long as those individuals did not break the country's laws. The colonies were worried that they had just left the King and wanted no parts of a president. So #10 tried to explain all about the protections we would put in place so individual interests and minorities would not fall prey to a new kind of tyranny. They would put in place protections of each state by having representations in a Senate where every colony - eventually state - would get the same representation no matter how small it was compared to the others. They would put in place a Court to interpret the law. And the constant tension among all of these entities would prevent a president from having too much power and individuals or groups with they interest from inciting confusions to bring down the whole, the U.S. The central power in the hands of a president having to contend with these safeguards against its controlling all the power would help keep all individual Americans safe. The larger the country, the more diverse the separate states, the more difficult it would be for a dictatorship to arise. The colonies became convinced and stopped fearing having a president. Again, you were doing so well, It is true that leftists of recent history love chopping us up into groups with grievances so they can better control us. Where you went astray is when you began describing the "seething resentment " of the right and its origins. There is no resentment in Republicans and other rightists here from having Civil Rights legislation shoved down "their throats". It was the Republicans throughout our history who instigated and helped bring about the end of slavery against the Democrats. It was the right which fought for integration. The KKK, those who fought to preserve slavery and prevent integration of schools were always in the Democrat Party. LBJ got lots of attention when he passed the Civil Rights act, but without the votes of Republicans in Congress, it would never have come to fruition. Tax cuts were never designed to drive up the deficit, but to spur growth of the economy which would bring more money into government, not less. When JFK passed his tax cuts, the economy got a big push and the government made more money. Yes, both sides promise heaven on earth. But if you look at the history from 1976 until today it is a series of democrats pulling the country away from capitalism and Republicans correcting their mistakes and fixing the country and then the sliding again when democrats win again. Taking power away from the central government to give us goodies or manage things is a good thing. Reagan fixed Carter's disastrous economy. Under Clinton we were headed back to catastrophe again until the 1994 Republican congress came in and fixed everything again, and then Clinton took credit for it, and that's okay, because at least he didn't get in the way. And I don't want to ruffle feathers, but recently the pattern began again. And until the plague hit us, we were coasting along in the best economy ever. Too much federal spending is terrible, I agree and both sides are guilty of that. Dismantling private property protection is lethally bad. We agree there. Oligarchs stealing from private citizens is a disease, yes. Taking power from individuals is dangerous. But we get more of these bad things every time we elect Democrats and this time the contrast couldn't be starker. I don't know about the Koch Brothers, but George Soros and the teachers unions have them beat when it comes to stealing power from individuals and placing it in the hands of government operators. Wages were going up, unemployment was virtually disappearing, and minorities of all kinds benefitted from these things the most. And then the pandemic struck and we were told were have to close down the economy. If this hadn't happened, we would have been in excellent economic shape. The chaos of now is a left wing phenomenon. These destructive mobs are avowed Marxists by their own definition. the graffiti and bringing down of statues and buildings and chaos and murder is all a left wing phenomenon these days - and BTW, occurring in cities run by progressive democrats. As for the left abandoning claims on material wealth and economic justice, where do you see that? It is in the Democrat party where you find the most rich who came into government with modest savings and left multi millionaires. Hillsdale College, which I would describe as closer to conservatism than liberalism as defined these days, does not deconstruct, does not elevate personal revelation above law or enable will to power movement. Hillsdale encourages individual responsibility. Lovers of safe spaces where nobody has to be overruled is a leftist phenomenon. Where are you finding in your George Zimmerman narrative that those three points you name are being forgotten by the Right? I call myself a rightist and those points seem just fine to me. Look how easy it is for two sides to see the same facts and come to completely different readings of what is going on. Of course, the big question is what would Percy make of it all these days? I am guessing he would hate what anarchist Marxists are doing to our cities, and attempting to do to our history, and our culture. We all should. I know that Percy would despair that things are not better. And I suspect he might find it very difficult to write those crazy fun house novels of his with their gorgeous endings. I suggest that each of us should settle down and set aside time to read the beautiful book by Wilfred McClay, Land of Hope. It clears up a lot of the confusion between Wade Riddick and me. And, borrowing from Ariel in The Tempest, it is so inspiring, it will make any reader cry if he is human. Janet Cantor On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:47 AM, Wade Riddick > wrote: What many people fail to understand is that both the Knotheads and the NOT-heads (i.e., "cancel culture") spring from the same toxic stew of sins: pluralism. Pluralism is the belief that we have rights not as citizens of countries but through the groups we belong to - race, gender, etc. The pluralists think democracy is useless and unless we bind together into our "group" we can't be represented. Leaving the group for another or disagreeing with your assigned "interest" is the deepest betrayal and provokes a backlash imminently Freudian in its ferocity. I haven't seen anything like it since I argued with the Communist Party cult remnants in graduate school about the value of money. They don't accept that "interests" cut across these boundaries. They don't want to see, for instance, that women have an interest in men graduating from college so they can have marriageable mates. They're an extension of the Zuckerberg computerization of our lives that wants to chop us up into interests so they can monetize us when we connect that way. NOT-heads aren't "almost angry" at the Constitution; they're in outright contempt of it because the founders were explicitly against this form of thinking. In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison warns that giving organized groups of people the same rights as actual individual citizens will destroy real rights for those citizens and enable factionalism. This type of group behavior has to be controlled or it will destroy the community of democracy. The knotheads are simply a different side of that tribalism - the Confederacy tribe. This other great enemy of democracy has been engaged in its own long war against federalism going back to the days of the first Confederacy. The anger you see on the "right" is seething resentment from having civil rights legislation shoved down their throats. Since the '70s, the Republican Party has been fueled by vendetta Dixiecrats fishing for ways to make the Federal government fail - first with Nixon's failed budget impoundment, then with tax cuts they hoped would drive up the deficit so high one day they could use it as an excuse to gut spending. ("We're finally bankrupt. Yay!") But every escalating disaster caused by their sabotage of government action - 9/11, credit default swap implosions, Hurricane Katerina, S&L crises - only increased demand for government action - because, as you see today, there's no other central actor in America that can handle crises of this magnitude. These two sides resemble one another because racism - tribal revenge - is a communicable disease, quickly mutualizing contempt when unchecked. Social media has brought us into one another's lives like never before and many of us can't stand what we see. (Maybe better digital fences would make better digital neighbors.) Contempt breeds contempt and without tolerance for one another, democratic compromise is impossible and we can't govern ourselves - which suits the short-term interests of the oligarchs just fine. They need to dismantle property protections (i.e., the justice system), if they're going to steal from us. What does this have to do with anything? When you leave groups on their own to organize, those with the most money oraganize the best. Sick people are probably the most important group in the country because when you become sick, you lose your autonomy and become dependent upon others. Sick people also have the least influence on the political system because all our time and money is tied up in being sick. Ditto for groups like the poor and unemployed - because you need resources to organize yourselves. Some interests can't organize themselves like this. That's the function of government - to organize and address the concerns of all citizens. What the NOT-heads fail to acknowledge is that their attitudes towards politics benefit the very oligarchs paying for us to hate each other. The insidious idea underlying pluralism is that these groups somehow "compete" with one another for "influence" over the government. That is, they bribe officials. This is what I mean when I say a coup took place at the Supreme Court level in the 1970s when unelected judges equated bribery of politicians with "free speech." If you want to see what the Koch Brother's perfect market in politics looks like, go visit Mexico today where every official is available for a price (or soon shot). That's the future that awaits us. So these two groups, lacking any pragmatic influence on positive agendas, can't govern. They can only veto, fume and fulminate. That's where we find ourselves. They both promise heaven on earth but can't even stop graffiti, much less a pandemic. Reality collides with these delusions and knocks followers into the same fatalistic flights of fancy that all failed charismatic cults descend into. Donald Trump becomes the Stokely Carmichael of white power and the Abbie Hoffman of the pandemic - gonna levitate that 'ronavirus with the good feelings of his mind ray. It's clear how the Confederacy keeps winding up in the same spot. It's more interesting how the Left fell into this heresy. Basically, in the '60s and '70s, Nixon destroyed the Left with targeted assassinations of Black Panther leadership, the War on Drugs, Cointelpro and other programs. The apparatus developed against democracy in Vietnam and Indonesia was reimported to "deradicalize" urban resistance to the new oil imperialist/banking oligarchy that you now see coming apart. This is why, today, we have such high incarceration rates: Jim Crow Part II. With both parties now locked down by bribery, unions getting dismantled and wages driven down, there was no room anymore for the Left outside academia and to succeed on the Left there, you had to abandon claims on material wealth and economic justice or you'd be dealt with too. Courses on Locke, Rousseau and Madison were shunted aside and restricted to graduate school - if available at all - so no uppity undergrads would ever have the gall to attack undemocratic militarism with democratic theory ever again. That forced the Left into a peculiarly sterile conversation about race and sex - not the underlying sources of injustice there that could never be questioned but rather on personal experience - to a fatalistically myopic degree. The end result of this is something called, bizarrely, Boasian antiracism . A similar defenestration of Christianity occurred on the right. It's considered "heresy" now to discuss the fact that Jesus wanted debt cancellation - when in fact the heresy is failing to point out that he did and that led to the crucifixion. Blame it all on the "Me Decade" of the '70s. Both the right and the left turned toward the personal, especially personal narrative and confessional - and new forms of communication gave them this power. Both sides fell prey to exaggerated doctrines of Deconstruction, elevating personal revelation above law, constitution and Gospel truth enabling the "will-to-power" movements common in fascism. Out went universal meaning and in swept wishy-washy relativism with "safe spaces" where nobody has to be overruled. Charismatic evangelicals (read: segregationists) substituted personal confession for Biblical truth. Witness George Zimmerman claiming it was part of God's plan he shoot an unarmed black boy walking home at night. The Right ate it up forgetting that 1) No greater love has a man than he gives up his life to save another (*not* takes another). 2) Do not be overcome by evil but rather overcome evil with good. 3) There is no fear in love. Love casts out fear. Zimmerman got out of the car that night armed with a gun because he was afraid he might die and unafraid to kill - pretty much the opposite of a Christian. But the anti-Christian charismatics ate it up in their culture war because he hated the right people. Of course, on the Left, these ironic contradictions abound too. When I heard Bruce Jenner confessing happiness at no longer having to lie to everybody, my first thought was, "He's admitting to cheating with steroids like I'm positive almost everybody in track and field at the Olympic level has been doing since the '50s?" No. My second thought was, "He's apologizing for giving people cancer and diabetes by selling us Wheaties?" Nope again. He's transgendered. Oh. How was that ever my business? What about all the people harmed by the cheating? Oh, well? In the future, we did get our fifteen minutes of fame and now we're all trapped in our own personality cults. We're one big self-published, unedited echo chamber of one. Ours is an era of personal narrative devoid of genuine readers. Reading takes kindness. Reading takes reflection and reflection is the enemy of sensationalist tweets. (Got to move those ads.) Bridging these islands of self presupposes an objective reality that can sustain us while we're "at sea" off your own island. I think Percy referred to this as the "intersubjective." But politically speaking, no man is an island. We can't be our own subjects of one, which was Madison's point. Substituting mob gangs does not give you a better form of government. We all fall prey to different heresies of perfection. Tech bros seem to think the world will become a perfect place with enough microchips thrown at it. (I've debugged too much code to believe that one.) The flip side of that is nasty too. Nostalgia is the enemy of forgiveness, which was a major theme of Percy's. Nostalgia imagines a perfect past. If the past was once perfect - or at least better - then the screwed up way things are today is unnecessary and we need no forgiveness. We just need to travel back in our memory to get there. But there's no one left showing us how fallible that memory is. Those critics disappeared in our flattened new perspective on life. We shouldn't idealize the past or despise it. Nor should we idealize the future. We should be, in our dire time of need, raging Pragmatists and radicalized moderates. Wade Riddick ------ Original Message ------ Received: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 10:43:12 AM EDT From: Ernest Hutton > To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 11 ? ?Hazel Motes (in Flannery O?Connor?s Wise Blood), searches for God by railing against organized religion. But in doing so, he prophesizes the authoritarian end-state pushed by today?s cancel culture: ?Where you come from is gone, where you thought you were going to never was there, and where you are is no good unless you can get away from it.? O?Connor had it right, and is now a victim of her own perspicacity. This reign of terror is destroying us all! Ernie Hutton Sent from my iPhone Ernest W Hutton Jr. FAICP Assoc AIA Hutton Associates Inc. New York/ Westhampton 917.836.7902 17 Woodbridge Lane, Quiogue Westhampton Beach NY 11978 >> On Aug 6, 2020, at 4:55 AM, Plemmons, Gregory > wrote: > ? > Patrick Connelly, a Percy scholar, spoke on Percy and race at one of the former Walker Percy Weekends. He commonly referenced a quote from Percy (I wish I knew the original source) about the eternal ?problem of human frailty trapped in historical circumstance?. That quote has stuck with me. It has echoes of Pompeii, especially as we seem to be entering a whole new era of cancel culture. The extreme left?s iconoclasm frightens me almost as much as that of the Knotheads. I wish people could devote more energy inward toward themselves and the current state of things. While dissecting the past will always have some merit, what are we ourselves going to be judged on, fifty years from now? Even five years from this pandemic? Percy was imperfect as the best of us, but he and his family also slept in their attic for two weeks after a bomb threat from the local Klan in 1969, after defending the removal of the Confederate flag from the principal?s office of the local high school. > > Zadie Smith took a stab recently attempting to answer the question of the purpose of fiction. ?Does it seem at all surprising in 2019...that we should have this hypersensitivity?... Whereas many more material issues?economic inequality, criminal justice reform, immigration?prove frighteningly intractable, language becomes the convenient battlefield.? > > Apologies for the long-winded rant. I read the New Yorker article. It taught me nothing new. Flannery was trapped as anyone. Her poor physical health is often overlooked. Lupus is a horrible disease and there were little options for treatment or even simple relief in her time. Again, ?historical circumstance?. I like to think if her disease hadn?t claimed her at 39, her views might have evolved, too. I guess we?ll never know. > > Gregory Plemmons, MD > >> On Aug 5, 2020, at 7:17 PM, Charles Cowherd > wrote: >> ? >> Just to weigh in on the Flannery O?Connor/ Paul Elie scrum. >> At the seminary (Episcopal) that I attended, a professor had included the short story ?The Artificial N____? in his compendium of short stories matched up to the preaching lectionary. (Flannery O?Connor fiction is VERY popular in Episcopal circles.) >> A draft copy somehow was made available to my fellow students, who opposed the inclusion. There was a big townhall meeting, a student petition, eventually the professor/author agreed to remove the story. >> This was about 3 years ago. >> I offer that up merely as another tiny data point in whatever this particular moment is all about. I know that Walker Percy spoke on that short story specifically but cannot find it, it?s in CONVERSATIONS with WALKER PECY. >> I do think that it?s a topic that we can discuss on this forum with care and concern and kindness for one another. >> Also, I have been reading THE NEW YORKER all my life (?a wonderful Yankee magazine?- my Dad always would say!). Only with this article the magazine it reveal how detached it is, as a source of journalism, from the world. It reminded me of Percy?s dislike (too soft a word?) for Descartes. Instead, Percy believed we are all embodied creatures, fallen and stumbling in the world. Whereas the New Yorker writes an article with the title: ?How Racist was Flannery O?Connor?? without any source of social location of time and place. >> All my best, >> Charles Cowherd >> [ WARNING : This email came from an external source. Please treat this message with additional caution.] >> ---------------------------------- >> * Percy-L Discussion Archives: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fpipermail%2Fpercy-l%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=XfC7cic65rm4ymcMNug%2B0i5pmKf%2BJaNoM7zlg%2FH9h%2FU%3D&reserved=0 >> >> * Manage Your Membership: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpercy-l&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=9Q3bnPoYfd2OBARKSecfmQiRP7qZKsewQN2GiBaj4t0%3D&reserved=0 >> >> * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org >> >> * Visit The Walker Percy Project: https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibiblio.org%2Fwpercy&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=vrA7LTBbjJ5lMFvbs6qJWQEFInGNNbuAWzJRCZDE1HY%3D&reserved=0 > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From wriddick at usa.net Sat Aug 8 02:00:34 2020 From: wriddick at usa.net (Wade Riddick) Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2020 02:00:34 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] A response to Janet Cantor Message-ID: <356yHHF8I2320Set.1596866434@web08.cms.usa.net> I always knew my pastor was delivering a good sermon when the Martin Niemoller came out. As to the Koch Brothers, though I haven't mentioned it, they are the closest to Communists we have in the country at the time. They really don't believe in property rights - private *or* public - when it comes to other people. The fact that this statement will strike so many people as odd is a testament to the degree of media influence they have. We require public goods like air to breathe or we drop dead. To rephrase it for thick-headed economists, we need clean, cheap public property like air or our body, our most fundamental piece of private property, gets devalued to zero. The Koch Brothers, though, don't believe we should have access to that clean air. They think air poisoning is great for "wealth creation" - yet there aren't any smokestacks in Koch mansions driving up their property values. That's because they know it destroys lives. They think they can dump their pollution on other people because their rights don't matter - like the blacks in St. John parish dying at inordinate rates from Covid-19, living in one of the most polluted zones in the country. We're all entitled to honest government - our most fundamental public property - which the Koch Brothers also don't agree with. They use bribery to steal it from us. If you get hauled in front of a judge over a property dispute involving a large company that stole $500 from you and that company is a donor to the judge or people who appointed him, how do you expect a fair resolution of your complaint and enforcement of your rights? Take a look at the AT&T Mobility case where management just decided to steal ("overbill," as McKinsey consultant apologists would put it) from thousands of customers. The court's resident corporate communists like Scalia declared that the organized crime conspiracy could band together to share legal costs but their victims could not. Technically victims still had the right to sue to get their money back but without class action status, none of the thousands of victims could share legal costs to prove the exact same case in court. Would you spend $200K to get back $20? (And don't even get me started on the fifty year decriminalization of white collar crime that culminated in the Trump looting of the Presidency. I'll be very shocked if Biden reverses this.) For John Bircher paranoiacs obsessed about pollution of the body politic, they sure have killed plenty of folks with pollution. These right wing "property rights" absolutists have been sawing off the tree limb they're sitting on for the last fifty years and Trump is the apotheosis of their celebration of sociopathic organized crime. (How do you expect to sell your office as a lawmaker to the highest bidder if the highest legal officer in the land won't even follow the law? Why am I paying you for laws nobody's going to follow or enforce?) It's the basic problem of kleptocrats. When you steal the money in a kleptocracy, where do you put it where it won't get stolen by your fellow kleptocrats? The fact is there has never been any greater endogenous Communist threat in this hemisphere than the Confederacy. They invented an excuse to completely confiscate all the property and rights of an entire class of citizen based on an accident of history, their skin color. This original sin has tainted every attempt to impose a more perfect understanding of democracy, free market competition and rights all across the country. It's no mistake the Koch's are obsessed with the absolute private property rights regime of the Confederacy and spent years funding the research of the fascist economist James Buchanan. Nancy MacLean outlines this vital but overlooked history in her recent work, _Democracy in Chains_. You may dislike my conflation of fascism with communism, but when you get down to brass tacks, the right/left spectrum is a bracelet, not a straight line. The extremes bend back around toward one another and wind up much closer than they are to the middle. Communists and fascists both have rigged elections to fake a popular mandate, death camps, propaganda, secret police, kangaroo courts, etc... What does this have to do with Percy? It's the eternal cu-de-sac of justified injustice and righteous vengeance that Jesus tried to break us out of. By the way, as to my academic bonafides, Janet, I was paid by the National Science Foundation to study politics, technology, fraud and other topics. You should pay attention to these opinions. They kept me alive after I was poisoned with dental mercury. Nothing screams fraud like medicine in America. Take a look at the Sackler family crime syndicate selling highly addictive opiates to chronic pain patients like me and lying about it. (I'll give Trump credited where it's due. At least he prosecuted a few opiate pill pushers.) Those of you about to go through the Covid-19 meat grinder will soon find out what I'm talking about when it comes to post-viral syndromes. It's why I've been writing so furiously since April. We should all remember a lesson I picked up during my brief, painful sojourn in private elementary school with a deplorable basket of toxic, proto-iZod nazis. We each have to earn the right for others to consider our opinions - and they have to earn the right for us to consider theirs. Short of a gun, nothing bullies really believe can hurt us or alter reality - which is, perhaps, the source of that fascination with violence and honor in Southern culture. Absent a strong central government to secure justice, it's up to the individual to redeem a "fallen" world through privatized violence. Except it's bullshit. Wade Riddick ------ Original Message ------ Received: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 01:43:04 PM EDT From: Karey Perkins To: "janetcantor37 at yahoo.com" , "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" Subject: [percy-l] A response to Janet Cantor #2, the Koch brothers decades-long stealth takeover of the United States government: Read Jane Mayers' Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires behind the Rise of the Radical Right. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/books/review/dark-money-by-jane-mayer.html https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south #3, that BLM, antifa, and other leftist protesters are inciting violence: Almost all of the protests are peaceful demonstrators exercising their first amendment rights. Nor are these groups in any way at all ?anarchist? - they just don?t like the fascism and racism that is rising in our country. Antifa literally refers to being ?anti-fascist? and is ?a moniker, not a single group with an organizational structure or leader.? It is an adjective, not a noun. Right wing social media and right wing media are propagating the myth that these are groups are violent, yet evidence shows that white nationalists and opportunists have infiltrated the protests to instigate violence. Trump's failures on the economy and the pandemic has caused him to move to campaign as the ?law and order? president, but this too is failing as his ?secret police? (for example in Portland, where federal agents were unmarked and unnamed) are attacking and hooding and capturing unarmed peaceful protesters, pulling them into unmarked vans, and the federal agents are the ones causing the violence themselves, against moms and Catholics. (They?ve since been driven out of Portland, and guess what? No more violence.). These feds are just another photo op for Trump, akin to his tear gassing peaceful protesters in order to walk across the street and raise a Bible (which I doubt Mr. Two Corinthians has ever opened) upside down outside of the Episcopal church in front of the White House. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/who-caused-violence-protests-its-not-antifa/ https://www.voanews.com/usa/four-extremist-groups-suspected-involvement-protest-violence https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-the-law-and-order-candidate-thats-a-laugh/2020/07/14/17037e86-c610-11ea-b037-f9711f89ee46_story.html https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/508597-the-memo-trump-struggles-to-get-traction-with-law-and-order-message https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/trump-getting-what-he-wants-portland/614635/ Your gross misinformation is because of the what?s happened to the media today ? which was supposed to be the fourth estate, part of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches? checks and balances on each other ? but has failed miserably at its job ever since the FCC Fairness Doctrine was repealed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#:~:text=The%20fairness%20doctrine%20of%20the,honest%2C%20equitable%2C%20and%20balanced. Because of that, news outlets of any source - TV, newspapers, magazines, internet ? can report anything they want. So we now have two completely different realities, and half of American live in one reality conveyed by one side of the aisle, while the other half lives in an entirely different reality conveyed by a different side of the aisle. Oh, wait, who said, fifty years ago, that that would happen? It has never been more important that Americans today have to be critical thinkers to evaluate news sources and information they come across to find out what the truth really is. But critical thinking and civics classes no longer exist in our high schools, so few Americans have any idea how to evaluate the media. Hence the great divide that Percy writes about - not just two sets of attitudes about the same set of facts, but completely different sets of facts, completely different realities entirely. My hope is that you will find better, more accurate sources, and become a better critical thinker concerning the constant bombardment of lies and misinformation that propagate in America. As for Lauren?s poem, I have another poem (there are many versions, here?s just one): First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me America is in a crisis. Percy would not have been quiet, and he wasn?t. He spoke out in his novels, even before this happened. Karey Karey Perkins, M.A., M.A.T., Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of English 296A Turner Hall, South Carolina State University Orangeburg, SC 29117 kperkin1 at scsu.edu | 803-536-7016 www.scsu.edu Member, Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-0002 kareperk at ttu.edu | http://www.pragmaticism.net > On Aug 7, 2020, at 6:36 AM, janetcantor37--- via Percy-L wrote: > > You opened so well. Federalist #10 is my favorite of the Federalist Papers. > Then you fell into conclusions that do not match mine. > > I agree that pluralism as you describe it - belief in the ascendancy of our attachment to factions instead of love of the whole, patriotism, love of country - is not good. > > The trouble is when I look up the definition of pluralism, it is the opposite of how you describe it. > > So I am going to tell you how I read #10: > > Our country needed a strong central symbol, the flag, a president, so that our individual interests (factions) could never get big enough to disrupt or bring down the whole. If we wanted to be a "country", able to defend itself against outside mischief from other countries, we had to be unified. Pluralism entailed allowing individuals as well as states and individual interests to be protected from meddling or destruction, as long as those individuals did not break the country's laws. > > The colonies were worried that they had just left the King and wanted no parts of a president. So #10 tried to explain all about the protections we would put in place so individual interests and minorities would not fall prey to a new kind of tyranny. They would put in place protections of each state by having representations in a Senate where every colony - eventually state - would get the same representation no matter how small it was compared to the others. They would put in place a Court to interpret the law. And the constant tension among all of these entities would prevent a president from having too much power and individuals or groups with they interest from inciting confusions to bring down the whole, the U.S. > The central power in the hands of a president having to contend with these safeguards against its controlling all the power would help keep all individual Americans safe. > The larger the country, the more diverse the separate states, the more difficult it would be for a dictatorship to arise. > The colonies became convinced and stopped fearing having a president. > > > Again, you were doing so well, It is true that leftists of recent history love chopping us up into groups with grievances so they can better control us. > > Where you went astray is when you began describing the "seething resentment " of the right and its origins. > > There is no resentment in Republicans and other rightists here from having Civil Rights legislation shoved down "their throats". > It was the Republicans throughout our history who instigated and helped bring about the end of slavery against the Democrats. It was the right which fought for integration. > The KKK, those who fought to preserve slavery and prevent integration of schools were always in the Democrat Party. > LBJ got lots of attention when he passed the Civil Rights act, but without the votes of Republicans in Congress, it would never have come to fruition. > > Tax cuts were never designed to drive up the deficit, but to spur growth of the economy which would bring more money into government, not less. When JFK passed his tax cuts, the economy got a big push and the government made more money. > > Yes, both sides promise heaven on earth. But if you look at the history from 1976 until today it is a series of democrats pulling the country away from capitalism and Republicans correcting their mistakes and fixing the country and then the sliding again when democrats win again. > Taking power away from the central government to give us goodies or manage things is a good thing. > Reagan fixed Carter's disastrous economy. > Under Clinton we were headed back to catastrophe again until the 1994 Republican congress came in and fixed everything again, and then Clinton took credit for it, and that's okay, because at least he didn't get in the way. And I don't want to ruffle feathers, but recently the pattern began again. > And until the plague hit us, we were coasting along in the best economy ever. > > Too much federal spending is terrible, I agree and both sides are guilty of that. Dismantling private property protection is lethally bad. We agree there. Oligarchs stealing from private citizens is a disease, yes. Taking power from individuals is dangerous. But we get more of these bad things every time we elect Democrats and this time the contrast couldn't be starker. > > I don't know about the Koch Brothers, but George Soros and the teachers unions have them beat when it comes to stealing power from individuals and placing it in the hands of government operators. > > Wages were going up, unemployment was virtually disappearing, and minorities of all kinds benefitted from these things the most. And then the pandemic struck and we were told were have to close down the economy. > If this hadn't happened, we would have been in excellent economic shape. > > The chaos of now is a left wing phenomenon. These destructive mobs are avowed Marxists by their own definition. the graffiti and bringing down of statues and buildings and chaos and murder is all a left wing phenomenon these days - and BTW, occurring in cities run by progressive democrats. > > As for the left abandoning claims on material wealth and economic justice, where do you see that? It is in the Democrat party where you find the most rich who came into government with modest savings and left multi millionaires. > > Hillsdale College, which I would describe as closer to conservatism than liberalism as defined these days, does not deconstruct, does not elevate personal revelation above law or enable will to power movement. Hillsdale encourages individual responsibility. > Lovers of safe spaces where nobody has to be overruled is a leftist phenomenon. > > Where are you finding in your George Zimmerman narrative that those three points you name are being forgotten by the Right? I call myself a rightist and those points seem just fine to me. > > Look how easy it is for two sides to see the same facts and come to completely different readings of what is going on. > > Of course, the big question is what would Percy make of it all these days? > I am guessing he would hate what anarchist Marxists are doing to our cities, and attempting to do to our history, and our culture. We all should. I know that Percy would despair that things are not better. And I suspect he might find it very difficult to write those crazy fun house novels of his with their gorgeous endings. > > I suggest that each of us should settle down and set aside time to read the beautiful book by Wilfred McClay, Land of Hope. It clears up a lot of the confusion between Wade Riddick and me. And, borrowing from Ariel in The Tempest, it is so inspiring, it will make any reader cry if he is human. > > Janet Cantor > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:47 AM, Wade Riddick > wrote: > What many people fail to understand is that both the Knotheads and the > NOT-heads (i.e., "cancel culture") spring from the same toxic stew of sins: > pluralism. > > Pluralism is the belief that we have rights not as citizens of countries but > through the groups we belong to - race, gender, etc. The pluralists think > democracy is useless and unless we bind together into our "group" we can't be > represented. Leaving the group for another or disagreeing with your assigned > "interest" is the deepest betrayal and provokes a backlash imminently Freudian > in its ferocity. I haven't seen anything like it since I argued with the > Communist Party cult remnants in graduate school about the value of money. > They don't accept that "interests" cut across these boundaries. They don't > want to see, for instance, that women have an interest in men graduating from > college so they can have marriageable mates. They're an extension of the > Zuckerberg computerization of our lives that wants to chop us up into > interests so they can monetize us when we connect that way. > > NOT-heads aren't "almost angry" at the Constitution; they're in outright > contempt of it because the founders were explicitly against this form of > thinking. In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison warns that giving organized > groups of people the same rights as actual individual citizens will destroy > real rights for those citizens and enable factionalism. This type of group > behavior has to be controlled or it will destroy the community of democracy. > > The knotheads are simply a different side of that tribalism - the Confederacy > tribe. This other great enemy of democracy has been engaged in its own long > war against federalism going back to the days of the first Confederacy. The > anger you see on the "right" is seething resentment from having civil rights > legislation shoved down their throats. Since the '70s, the Republican Party > has been fueled by vendetta Dixiecrats fishing for ways to make the Federal > government fail - first with Nixon's failed budget impoundment, then with tax > cuts they hoped would drive up the deficit so high one day they could use it > as an excuse to gut spending. ("We're finally bankrupt. Yay!") But every > escalating disaster caused by their sabotage of government action - 9/11, > credit default swap implosions, Hurricane Katerina, S&L crises - only > increased demand for government action - because, as you see today, there's no > other central actor in America that can handle crises of this magnitude. > > These two sides resemble one another because racism - tribal revenge - is a > communicable disease, quickly mutualizing contempt when unchecked. Social > media has brought us into one another's lives like never before and many of us > can't stand what we see. (Maybe better digital fences would make better > digital neighbors.) Contempt breeds contempt and without tolerance for one > another, democratic compromise is impossible and we can't govern ourselves - > which suits the short-term interests of the oligarchs just fine. They need to > dismantle property protections (i.e., the justice system), if they're going to > steal from us. > > What does this have to do with anything? > > When you leave groups on their own to organize, those with the most money > oraganize the best. Sick people are probably the most important group in the > country because when you become sick, you lose your autonomy and become > dependent upon others. Sick people also have the least influence on the > political system because all our time and money is tied up in being sick. > Ditto for groups like the poor and unemployed - because you need resources to > organize yourselves. Some interests can't organize themselves like this. > That's the function of government - to organize and address the concerns of > all citizens. > > What the NOT-heads fail to acknowledge is that their attitudes towards > politics benefit the very oligarchs paying for us to hate each other. The > insidious idea underlying pluralism is that these groups somehow "compete" > with one another for "influence" over the government. That is, they bribe > officials. This is what I mean when I say a coup took place at the Supreme > Court level in the 1970s when unelected judges equated bribery of politicians > with "free speech." If you want to see what the Koch Brother's perfect market > in politics looks like, go visit Mexico today where every official is > available for a price (or soon shot). That's the future that awaits us. > > So these two groups, lacking any pragmatic influence on positive agendas, > can't govern. They can only veto, fume and fulminate. That's where we find > ourselves. They both promise heaven on earth but can't even stop graffiti, > much less a pandemic. Reality collides with these delusions and knocks > followers into the same fatalistic flights of fancy that all failed > charismatic cults descend into. Donald Trump becomes the Stokely Carmichael > of white power and the Abbie Hoffman of the pandemic - gonna levitate that > 'ronavirus with the good feelings of his mind ray. > > It's clear how the Confederacy keeps winding up in the same spot. It's more > interesting how the Left fell into this heresy. Basically, in the '60s and > '70s, Nixon destroyed the Left with targeted assassinations of Black Panther > leadership, the War on Drugs, Cointelpro and other programs. The apparatus > developed against democracy in Vietnam and Indonesia was reimported to > "deradicalize" urban resistance to the new oil imperialist/banking oligarchy > that you now see coming apart. This is why, today, we have such high > incarceration rates: Jim Crow Part II. > > With both parties now locked down by bribery, unions getting dismantled and > wages driven down, there was no room anymore for the Left outside academia and > to succeed on the Left there, you had to abandon claims on material wealth and > economic justice or you'd be dealt with too. Courses on Locke, Rousseau and > Madison were shunted aside and restricted to graduate school - if available at > all - so no uppity undergrads would ever have the gall to attack undemocratic > militarism with democratic theory ever again. That forced the Left into a > peculiarly sterile conversation about race and sex - not the underlying > sources of injustice there that could never be questioned but rather on > personal experience - to a fatalistically myopic degree. The end result of > this is something called, bizarrely, Boasian antiracism > >. > > A similar defenestration of Christianity occurred on the right. It's > considered "heresy" now to discuss the fact that Jesus wanted debt > cancellation - when in fact the heresy is failing to point out that he did and > that led to the crucifixion. > > Blame it all on the "Me Decade" of the '70s. Both the right and the left > turned toward the personal, especially personal narrative and confessional - > and new forms of communication gave them this power. Both sides fell prey to > exaggerated doctrines of Deconstruction, elevating personal revelation above > law, constitution and Gospel truth enabling the "will-to-power" movements > common in fascism. Out went universal meaning and in swept wishy-washy > relativism with "safe spaces" where nobody has to be overruled. > > Charismatic evangelicals (read: segregationists) substituted personal > confession for Biblical truth. Witness George Zimmerman claiming it was part > of God's plan he shoot an unarmed black boy walking home at night. The Right > ate it up forgetting that > > 1) No greater love has a man than he gives up his life to save another (*not* > takes another). > 2) Do not be overcome by evil but rather overcome evil with good. > 3) There is no fear in love. Love casts out fear. > > Zimmerman got out of the car that night armed with a gun because he was afraid > he might die and unafraid to kill - pretty much the opposite of a Christian. > But the anti-Christian charismatics ate it up in their culture war because he > hated the right people. > > Of course, on the Left, these ironic contradictions abound too. > > When I heard Bruce Jenner confessing happiness at no longer having to lie to > everybody, my first thought was, "He's admitting to cheating with steroids > like I'm positive almost everybody in track and field at the Olympic level has > been doing since the '50s?" > > No. > > My second thought was, "He's apologizing for giving people cancer and diabetes > by selling us Wheaties?" > > Nope again. > > He's transgendered. > > Oh. > > How was that ever my business? > > What about all the people harmed by the cheating? > > Oh, well? > > In the future, we did get our fifteen minutes of fame and now we're all > trapped in our own personality cults. We're one big self-published, unedited > echo chamber of one. Ours is an era of personal narrative devoid of genuine > readers. Reading takes kindness. Reading takes reflection and reflection is > the enemy of sensationalist tweets. (Got to move those ads.) Bridging these > islands of self presupposes an objective reality that can sustain us while > we're "at sea" off your own island. I think Percy referred to this as the > "intersubjective." > > But politically speaking, no man is an island. We can't be our own subjects > of one, which was Madison's point. Substituting mob gangs does not give you a > better form of government. > > We all fall prey to different heresies of perfection. Tech bros seem to think > the world will become a perfect place with enough microchips thrown at it. > (I've debugged too much code to believe that one.) The flip side of that is > nasty too. Nostalgia is the enemy of forgiveness, which was a major theme of > Percy's. Nostalgia imagines a perfect past. If the past was once perfect - > or at least better - then the screwed up way things are today is unnecessary > and we need no forgiveness. We just need to travel back in our memory to get > there. > > But there's no one left showing us how fallible that memory is. Those critics > disappeared in our flattened new perspective on life. > > We shouldn't idealize the past or despise it. Nor should we idealize the > future. We should be, in our dire time of need, raging Pragmatists and > radicalized moderates. > > Wade Riddick > > > ------ Original Message ------ > Received: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 10:43:12 AM EDT > From: Ernest Hutton > > To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" > > > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 11 > > ? > ?Hazel Motes (in Flannery O?Connor?s Wise Blood), searches for God by > railing against organized religion. But in doing so, he prophesizes the > authoritarian end-state pushed by today?s cancel culture: ?Where you come > from is gone, where you thought you were going to never was there, and where > you are is no good unless you can get away from it.? > > O?Connor had it right, and is now a victim of her own perspicacity. This > reign of terror is destroying us all! > > Ernie Hutton > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > Ernest W Hutton Jr. FAICP Assoc AIA > Hutton Associates Inc. > New York/ Westhampton > 917.836.7902 > > 17 Woodbridge Lane, Quiogue > Westhampton Beach NY 11978 > > >> On Aug 6, 2020, at 4:55 AM, Plemmons, Gregory > > wrote: > > ? > > Patrick Connelly, a Percy scholar, spoke on Percy and race at one of the > former Walker Percy Weekends. He commonly referenced a quote from Percy (I > wish I knew the original source) about the eternal ?problem of human frailty > trapped in historical circumstance?. That quote has stuck with me. It has > echoes of Pompeii, especially as we seem to be entering a whole new era of > cancel culture. The extreme left?s iconoclasm frightens me almost as much as > that of the Knotheads. I wish people could devote more energy inward toward > themselves and the current state of things. While dissecting the past will > always have some merit, what are we ourselves going to be judged on, fifty > years from now? Even five years from this pandemic? Percy was imperfect as the > best of us, but he and his family also slept in their attic for two weeks > after a bomb threat from the local Klan in 1969, after defending the removal > of the Confederate flag from the principal?s office of the local high > school. > > > > Zadie Smith took a stab recently attempting to answer the question of the > purpose of fiction. ?Does it seem at all surprising in 2019...that we should > have this hypersensitivity?... Whereas many more material issues?economic > inequality, criminal justice reform, immigration?prove frighteningly > intractable, language becomes the convenient battlefield.? > > > > Apologies for the long-winded rant. I read the New Yorker article. It taught > me nothing new. Flannery was trapped as anyone. Her poor physical health is > often overlooked. Lupus is a horrible disease and there were little options > for treatment or even simple relief in her time. Again, ?historical > circumstance?. I like to think if her disease hadn?t claimed her at 39, > her views might have evolved, too. I guess we?ll never know. > > > > Gregory Plemmons, MD > > > >> On Aug 5, 2020, at 7:17 PM, Charles Cowherd > > wrote: > >> ? > >> Just to weigh in on the Flannery O?Connor/ Paul Elie scrum. > >> At the seminary (Episcopal) that I attended, a professor had included the > short story ?The Artificial N____? in his compendium of short stories > matched up to the preaching lectionary. (Flannery O?Connor fiction is VERY > popular in Episcopal circles.) > >> A draft copy somehow was made available to my fellow students, who opposed > the inclusion. There was a big townhall meeting, a student petition, > eventually the professor/author agreed to remove the story. > >> This was about 3 years ago. > >> I offer that up merely as another tiny data point in whatever this > particular moment is all about. I know that Walker Percy spoke on that short > story specifically but cannot find it, it?s in CONVERSATIONS with WALKER > PECY. > >> I do think that it?s a topic that we can discuss on this forum with care > and concern and kindness for one another. > >> Also, I have been reading THE NEW YORKER all my life (?a wonderful Yankee > magazine?- my Dad always would say!). Only with this article the magazine it > reveal how detached it is, as a source of journalism, from the world. It > reminded me of Percy?s dislike (too soft a word?) for Descartes. Instead, > Percy believed we are all embodied creatures, fallen and stumbling in the > world. Whereas the New Yorker writes an article with the title: ?How Racist > was Flannery O?Connor?? without any source of social location of time and > place. > >> All my best, > >> Charles Cowherd > >> [ WARNING : This email came from an external source. Please treat this > message with additional caution.] > >> ---------------------------------- > >> * Percy-L Discussion Archives: > https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fpipermail%2Fpercy-l%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=XfC7cic65rm4ymcMNug%2B0i5pmKf%2BJaNoM7zlg%2FH9h%2FU%3D&reserved=0 > >> > >> * Manage Your Membership: > https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpercy-l&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=9Q3bnPoYfd2OBARKSecfmQiRP7qZKsewQN2GiBaj4t0%3D&reserved=0 > >> > >> * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > >> > >> * Visit The Walker Percy Project: > https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibiblio.org%2Fwpercy&data=02%7C01%7Cgregory.plemmons%40vumc.org%7Ca4a5645addbb466a722508d8399e2550%7Cef57503014244ed8b83c12c533d879ab%7C0%7C1%7C637322698685555312&sdata=vrA7LTBbjJ5lMFvbs6qJWQEFInGNNbuAWzJRCZDE1HY%3D&reserved=0 > > > > ---------------------------------- > > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > > > * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From wriddick at usa.net Sat Aug 8 02:27:38 2020 From: wriddick at usa.net (Wade Riddick) Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2020 02:27:38 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] Our plague year Message-ID: <952yHHgAM8960Set.1596868058@web06.cms.usa.net> I realize this is an inappropriate forum for discussing this, but sometimes you have to transgress in an "interest group" to save the community. While the food you eat is clearly a private good, its nutritional content is not. Just as you require vitamins and calories - or you die - you also require healthy intestinal flora and fiber to feed it. We've stripped that fiber out of our food supply and added the wrong, inflammatory fats to our diet resulting in the epidemic of diabetes and obesity that has left us vulnerable to Covid-19. We did this to the food supply because the inflammation (via an LPS/fatty acid synthase/TLR4 pathway, if you must know) made us overeat (hypothalamic inflammation) and made us addicted (via a TLR4/mu opioid channel shared with heroin addicts - among numerous pathways I could cite). Addiction results in repeat business and overeating jacks up food purchases - two big juicers of corporate food profits. Oh, yeah. It just so happens diabetes, obesity, cancer and viral infections make use of the same fatty acid/palmitate pathway. We will never fortify ourselves if we can't deal with these industries. The result of privatizing our nutrition has been food that doesn't nourish you; it actually programs you to be hungrier. It doesn't promote independence; it robs you of personal autonomy, roping you back into a feudal world of fealty, now with a high tech, biochemical (or sometimes digital) twist. The privatization of public goods results in extortion for profit. If we paid firefighters a bonus for each fire they put out, entire cities would burn to the ground. You think it's a coincidence we have more military contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan that U.S. military and we've had the two longest, most expensive and least determinant wars ever? It's not a mistake. It's by design. These guys go to war for profit. If the war ends, there's no more profit. They don't want to win it or lose it. Car companies naturally want more car buyers. Why is it so hard to believe that for-profit treaments of sickness economically incentivizes more sickness? There are some very cheap treatments and approaches to Covid-19 that, while not curative, would certainly diminish its devastation. BCG vaccines, for instance - but not one of the ad revenue supported TV channels discusses it. We could vaccinate every kid in the country with it for pennies on the dollar compared to some of the treatments they're working on. Yes, the data on hydroxychloroquine looks good too, but only for early stage infection. I really wish to God Trump and Bolsinaro would stop talking about it. You don't even hear about the effectiveness of the protocol developed in Texas using vitamin C, low-dose corticosteroids and blood thinners - which is cheap, cheap, cheap too. I grew up with what I now know is a form of arthritis set in motion by exposure to second-hand smoke (ubiquitous in the 1970s) and antibiotics for the infections. My freshman year of high school, I took TV and film production from a chain smoker named Marti Wagner. She made sure before we ever got into Baton Rouge High's three camera studio - the only one of its kind in the country at the time - we understood the history of the medium. She made us watch doctors on TV advertising cigarettes in the '40s and '50s as healthy. Then we watched Yul Brenner dying of lung cancer telling us not to smoke. Then we watched Leni Reifenstahl Nazi propaganda. And I just happened to be reading _The Diary of Anne Frank_ around the same time. I remember Walker Percy talking about his troubles with tuberculosis and the way he wove euthanasia and Nazi history into his narratives, but I swear I never expected to be living through it, either personally or as a bystander to national suffering. What would the existentialists make of our plague year? Wade Riddick ------ Original Message ------ Received: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 08:16:17 PM EDT From: Karey Perkins To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" Subject: Re: [percy-l] Pluralism or community? A response to Wade Riddick. America?s horrendous and failed response to the pandemic, worse than any other country in the entire world, developed and developing, making America ?first? at being ?worst,? (is this Making America Great Again?), is entirely and totally due to "the rest? ? the incompetence and corruption of our political leaders. America?s failure at handling the pandemic is not an accident, but due to decades of dismantling of our democracy, culminating in the present particularly incompetent and corrupt administration. Cause and effect. It?s basic science, as Peirce would say. Pragmaticism. THAT is worth talking about. "Speak out," as the poem says. Read and learn: https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/07/inside-the-us-pandemic-incompetence-it-starts-at-the-top/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/09/coronavirus-american-failure/614191/ https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006740 Karey Perkins, M.A., M.A.T., Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of English 296A Turner Hall, South Carolina State University Orangeburg, SC 29117 kperkin1 at scsu.edu | 803-536-7016 www.scsu.edu Member, Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-0002 kareperk at ttu.edu | http://www.pragmaticism.net > On Aug 7, 2020, at 2:44 PM, RHONDA MCDONNELL wrote: > > Well, yes, in response to the pandemic. But the rest ... ;-) > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Aug 7, 2020, at 2:24 PM, Karey Perkins wrote: >> >> ? According to Charles Sanders Peirce (paraphrased badly): >> >> There is a reality out there. It?s not a matter of opinion; reality exists quite separately from any human opinion. While no human has a 100% grasp on reality, some human views are more close to that real reality out there than others. Those whose views of reality most closely coincide with reality itself are most successful; those whose views deviate more from what reality actually is ? will fail. >> >> I may believe I can fly, but if I jump off of tall buildings in order to practice that belief, it won?t bode well for me. >> >> If I believe in gravity, I?ll not be jumping out of buildings. I?ll fare far better than my compatriot who IS jumping off of buildings. >> >> That?s pragmaticism. >> >> We as humans have a profound responsibility to seek the truth and propagate the truth ? not as an abstraction, but as a flesh-and blood physical reality. >> >> Because dying in a pandemic is a flesh and blood reality. Being unemployed (by some estimates, 47.2% of Americans) and evicted from your home is a flesh and blood reality with real physical consequences. >> >> This is no longer about abstracted religious ?belief? or political ?belief.? This is not about silly political arguments. This is life and death. >> >> This is not an abstraction for hundreds of thousands of Americans. >> >> Karey >> >> >> Karey Perkins, M.A., M.A.T., Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor, Department of English >> 296A Turner Hall, South Carolina State University >> Orangeburg, SC 29117 >> kperkin1 at scsu.edu | 803-536-7016 >> www.scsu.edu >> Member, Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism >> Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-0002 >> kareperk at ttu.edu | http://www.pragmaticism.net >> >> >> >> >>> On Aug 7, 2020, at 1:31 PM, RHONDA MCDONNELL > wrote: >>> >>> In just the last few posts, where we see some polarization, I am reminded of Tom More reflecting on the arguments among his fellow prisoners in THE THANATOS SYNDROME ? can?t help but smile. >>> >>> Wishing y?all well, >>> >>> Rhonda >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Aug 7, 2020, at 6:36 AM, janetcantor37--- via Percy-L > wrote: >>>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------- >>> * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ >>> >>> * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l >>> >>> * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org >>> >>> * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy >> >> >> ---------------------------------- >> * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ >> >> * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l >> >> * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org >> >> * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > ---------------------------------- > * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ > > * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l > > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org > > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------- * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/ * Manage Your Membership: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From wriddick at usa.net Sat Aug 8 02:38:11 2020 From: wriddick at usa.net (Wade Riddick) Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2020 02:38:11 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] Relevance Message-ID: <356yHHglL7504Set.1596868691@web08.cms.usa.net> I have to agree with Janet. There is no way to discuss a "Southern" writer without discussing the gothic underbelly of our history. All of these topics are relevant and the debate itself was an integral core to _Love in the Ruins_. Not to mention _The Thanatos Syndome_, where our protagonist tries to crawl out of his own private brush with the pill mills that still ravage us. How often did Percy write about the eternal disappointment of looking for chemical solace in matters of spiritual transcendence? How do we describe our dying modern era as anything other than imminently immanent? Why can Johnny lift off but never transcend? (Where did he leave the viagra/whiskey/hooker/narcotic/gun/deep space telescope...?) Wasn't that the source of Percy's irony? Who are we trying to get autonomy from? Who is our new god? I think Percy would find it ironic all of our malls are shutting down and fleeing to a cost-reduced virtual flaneur-land called Amazon. Not the Atchafalaya bayou, but swampy enough. Wade Riddick ------ Original Message ------ Received: Sat, 08 Aug 2020 12:03:45 AM EDT From: janetcantor37--- via Percy-L To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" , "Beck, David A" , "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" Cc: "janetcantor37 at yahoo.com" , Stephen Holmgren Subject: Re: [percy-l] [External] Re: Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 21 No!That was important.The rest of the back and forth I regret my part in and I have made a vow to myself. I will post on this site. But I will never debate with anyone again. Your post about O'Connor was appropriate and important. Janet Cantor From wppdirector at gmail.com Sat Aug 8 04:01:15 2020 From: wppdirector at gmail.com (Henry P. Mills) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 04:01:15 -0400 Subject: [percy-l] Percy-L Discussion Temporarily on Hold - Guidelines Enclosed Message-ID: Dear Percy-L Community: Thanks to all for the spirited Percy discussion. Please review the below excerpt from the Percy-L "Welcome Message? each member received upon joining the list. The complete version is available at >. Best Percy wishes, Henry Mills Percy-L Administrator www.ibiblio.org/wpercy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From THE PERCY-L GUIDELINES WELCOME MESSAGE Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion SECTION A. GENERAL POLICIES The Percy-L forum is open to the discussion of all topics pertaining to the work and thought of the American novelist and philosopher Walker Percy. Students, general readers, and scholars are all welcome, as well as simply the curious. There is no standing agenda for the list except the promotion of commentary of the sort that one would expect from people with a special interest in Percy. As such, the list will remain unmoderated unless some future reason requires it. A diverse range of critical perspectives is therefore welcomed, if not encouraged, as long as the manner and method of expression are responsible and respectful of the parties they are addressed to, as well as the larger list membership as a whole. ?. SECTION F. SPECIAL DISCUSSION CONSIDERATIONS In order to keep discussion focused on Percy subjects, please observe the following discussion guidelines: 1) Avoid introducing what might be considered partisan political topics, unless they directly bear on or are consciously correlated to Percy and his thought. This rule does not exclude current events from discussion, but merely underscores that this is a listserv dedicated to Percy topics, not personal political agendas. ?. August 8, 2020 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: