[percy-l] O'Connor
Joseph Francisco
joe.francisco4591 at gmail.com
Wed Aug 5 15:12:45 EDT 2020
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 <percy-l-bounces+dabeck=iupui.edu at lists.ibiblio.org> on
>> behalf of RHONDA MCDONNELL <rhonda_mcdonnell at msn.com>
>> *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 <larsonovic at gmail.com> 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 <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: Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 25 (Thomas Gollier)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 15:25:03 -0700
>> From: Thomas Gollier <tgollier at gmail.com>
>> To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion"
>> <percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org>
>> Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 25
>> Message-ID:
>> <CAMVPF1Ftj_55BrafJ6MSB5V8iabcLuU_1AYdDhzum9yAj=
>> 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 <larsonovic at gmail.com>
>> 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-0001.html>
More information about the Percy-L
mailing list