Dale, I'm sure glad that you raised this topic, and I hope not to be offensive in my comments/points. I'll preface this next post by saying that I really don't "know" anything with any degree of epistemological certainty, and as a general principal do not believe that such certainty is ever possible.

So I'm like the blind men and the element, but unlike any one of them, I'm trying to feel my way around the whole thing, as best I can, before claiming to know the whole.

...and I also know that I'm blind.

The reason I made a connection between imagination and soul was that I'm juggling the idea that those intangibles recognized in humanity (and recursively, by humanity) are in some profound fashion inter-related. I had almost added the existence of beauty and its perception/recognition by humans, as you had raised in an earlier thread, because this, too, seems to belong to that group of human intangibles.

For a long time, rightly or wrongly, I've increasingly worked from the premise that humanity as a species is simply a member of the animal kingdom, but endowed with a brain adapted for problem solving in a varied environment, and since we're not particularly well-endowed physically, like my cats, we have a lot more problems to solve. More so, perhaps, than the similarly endowed cetaceans, who have evolved in a relatively stable physical environment that changes slowly and incrementally, for most part. Water has been that buffer which consistently bought them time to a degree unavailable on a landmass.

So we're attuned to problem solving, whereas they're attuned to navigation, for example.

So were are "top dog" so far as intellect goes, at least in problem-solving, and that means imagination.

Simply put, we have more ability to imagine (simulate situations, in essence) than any other known life-form, sooo...

Maybe imagination, to the advanced degree that humanity possesses it over and above other members of the animal kingdom, is what sets us apart, and is at the root of what it means to be human.

I'm suggesting that relationship between the soul and imagination is that we can imagine that we have a soul.

I would also say that in terms of intellect, including imagination, we are on a continuum with other advanced species, and that some of them may indeed possess the rudiments, but when taken as a group and measured as a group, fall significantly below any human population, although it is disquieting to note that I've been around some gifted dogs who seem to have as much imagination, and perhaps more, than some deficient humans.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

Much snipped...

> At some of
> these sites, my expressed ideals, of each
> country/nation having the right to a stable and
> homogenous culture freed from the international
> banking slavery, have been immediately and
> collectively rabidly attacked by the community in
> a state of hysterical confusion.

...which is exactly why I'm here, and not elsewhere.

There's an excellent balance of openness and decorum here at ED. [Much self-congratulatory applause in background...]

And I'll have you know that I've been thrown out...yes! banned and/or deleted...from better joints that this! ;^)

As I no doubt boasted before, I was banned from Ta-Nahisi Coates' old Atlantic column back when the Atlantic still supported reader comments, had selected comments banned from my local newspaper's website, The Oregonian, until they, too, did away with comments, so that like the Atlantic, they could live in the illusion that all readers agreed with their gifted and wise pronouncements.

I was also tossed from multiple Discus forums for asking questions, like some kind of wise guy.

Yep, that's why I'm here. It doesn't seem like I'm asking for much: just an open exchange between individuals who well-read, grant an initial level of respect to interlocutors, and comport themselves with a bit of class and restraint.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well said, Sawfish.

Yes, I have also been shut off from newspapers and from Discus forums. But that was almost 20 years ago. None of the major newspapers have comments sections anymore, the whole Internet is getting more and more controlled and censured toward opinions that do not fit the (((Agenda))). Whatever happened to Free Speech?

And what's even more outrageous and upsetting is that the herd accepts the censure, in this case people supposedly interested in literature.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 16 Jul 21 | 10:46AM by Knygatin.

Knygatin & others, here's a quotation from Theodore Dalrymple for you.

“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”

Whether intended or not, the tendency of sociological consciousness is towards a demoralized, dispirited society, because demoralization and despondency are likely concomitants of 'sociology's" way of harping on numbers (often bogus numbers, by the way*). Numbers are necessary tools for many human activities, but arguments that invoke numbers are probably going to be "sociological" and, thus, to involve suppression of the human dimension.

*The absence of numbers or the use of numbers related to ill-defined or undefined claims is a feature of much sociological writing too. I saw this USA Today piece the other day. Note that this was not a hot-under-the-collar comment someone posted, butu editorial content in a national newspaper:

[www.usatoday.com]

"In the year since former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd, law enforcement killed hundreds of people of color in the United States. While the guilty Chauvin verdict was a victory for the Floyd family, justice never came for other families of people killed by police."

"Hundreds," quotha! How many, since you, writer, presumably know?

The writer attempts to exploit the supposed objective, factual value of numbers... to get the rhetorical oomph due to such ... but doesn't state the number.

Nor does the writer explain the circumstances. Were the people who were killed doing things like, oh, say threatening people with lethal weapons?

The implied scenario, since Floyd is invoked, is that white police were killing non-whites. Was that the case?

Further: "countless stories of police brutality in Minnesota aren’t getting the same attention." "Countless," quotha! The writer deplores the fact that these other deaths aren't getting "the same attention" as Floyd's did. This statement makes sense only if the deaths were comparably to that inflicted by Officer Chauvin. Were they?

And so on.

The piece is a good example of the desperately dishonest rhetoric of sociological emitters -- some of them, be it noted, not being leftists as this writer evidently is.

Happily, one can turn off, turn away from such rubbish. The worthwhile books are there.

When I come to lie in my dying bed, I am not going to feel bitter regret that I didn't read more tweets, didn't watch more TV news, didn't attend more woke college courses, etc.

Poetic consciousness allows the portrayal of, alllows inquiry into, subtleties of human experience. Walter de la Mare and his work would be a good example.

a Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin & others, here's a quotation from
> Theodore Dalrymple for you.

A favorite!

He writes a column that I read every Friday.

>
> “Political correctness is communist propaganda
> writ small. In my study of communist societies, I
> came to the conclusion that the purpose of
> communist propaganda was not to persuade or
> convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and
> therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the
> better. When people are forced to remain silent
> when they are being told the most obvious lies, or
> even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies
> themselves, they lose once and for all their sense
> of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to
> co-operate with evil, and in some small way to
> become evil oneself. One's standing to resist
> anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A
> society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I
> think if you examine political correctness, it has
> the same effect and is intended to.”
>
> Whether intended or not, the tendency of
> sociological consciousness is towards a
> demoralized, dispirited society, because
> demoralization and despondency are likely
> concomitants of 'sociology's" way of harping on
> numbers (often bogus numbers, by the way*).
> Numbers are necessary tools for many human
> activities, but arguments that invoke numbers are
> probably going to be "sociological" and, thus, to
> involve suppression of the human dimension.
>
> *The absence of numbers or the use of numbers
> related to ill-defined or undefined claims is a
> feature of much sociological writing too. I saw
> this USA Today piece the other day. Note that
> this was not a hot-under-the-collar comment
> someone posted, butu editorial content in a
> national newspaper:
>
> [www.usatoday.com]
> er-george-floyds-death-other-minnesota-families-st
> ill-seek-justice/5241693001/
>
> "In the year since former Minneapolis police
> officer Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd, law
> enforcement killed hundreds of people of color in
> the United States. While the guilty Chauvin
> verdict was a victory for the Floyd family,
> justice never came for other families of people
> killed by police."
>
> "Hundreds," quotha! How many, since you, writer,
> presumably know?
>
> The writer attempts to exploit the supposed
> objective, factual value of numbers... to get the
> rhetorical oomph due to such ... but doesn't state
> the number.
>
> Nor does the writer explain the circumstances.
> Were the people who were killed doing things like,
> oh, say threatening people with lethal weapons?
>
> The implied scenario, since Floyd is invoked, is
> that white police were killing non-whites. Was
> that the case?
>
> Further: "countless stories of police brutality in
> Minnesota aren’t getting the same attention."
> "Countless," quotha! The writer deplores the fact
> that these other deaths aren't getting "the same
> attention" as Floyd's did. This statement makes
> sense only if the deaths were comparably to that
> inflicted by Officer Chauvin. Were they?
>
> And so on.
>
> The piece is a good example of the desperately
> dishonest rhetoric of sociological emitters --
> some of them, be it noted, not being leftists as
> this writer evidently is.

I agree with all of this Dale, and for the first time in my life I am completely without any ideas on how to overtly combat something, even as a pathetic passive/aggressive wimp.

No kidding. Prior to Obama's second term (a man whom I had voted for in 2008 with the highest of hopes), I could always find a way to at least rhetorically oppose this sort of nonsense because up until then, most of the populace--including those with whom I differed--accepted as a basis for discussion the primacy of demonstrable fact and the consistency of application of moral judgement.

That all stopped over a period of about 2 years, and now we find interlocutors who don't care if they can't ***objectively*** prove a point, and someone else can, nor do they feel constrained to follow any consistent pattern in the way they ascribe culpability or even responsibility.

[ASIDE: This is what CRT refers to as the "importance of narrative". In short, believe my personal story and give it primacy over demonstrable fact. #metoo, anyone?]

Or anything else, for that matter, and that's because they want what they want, when they want it.

You see that what I've described is closest to a child in the throes of the infamous "terrible Twos". Anyone with any experience with such a child knows that nothing works except consistent adult restraint and supervision until they've outgrown that phase.

To steal from Jack Parr..."I kid you not."

This is not possible with 30 year olds who have the same moral compass as a two-year old. It would, however, be appropriate, and hopefully effective.

If this is indeed the reality, and if I have 5-10 years left, I'll hunker down, never give a rhetorical inch, and hopefully die with my integrity intact.

That's the best I can hope for, it looks like, and it's good enough for me.

>
> Happily, one can turn off, turn away from such
> rubbish. The worthwhile books are there.

I can always come here, too.

In many ways. it's like Jorkens' club... :^)

>
> When I come to lie in my dying bed, I am not going
> to feel bitter regret that I didn't read more
> tweets, didn't watch more TV news, didn't attend
> more woke college courses, etc.
>
> Poetic consciousness allows the portrayal of,
> alllows inquiry into, subtleties of human
> experience. Walter de la Mare and his work would
> be a good example.

Very well said, Dale.

Thanks.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 16 Jul 21 | 07:54PM by Sawfish.

I used to think of Dalrymple as a much-needed voice of sanity, and I bought and thought highly of his first three books, but once his publishers stopped editing his work he quickly turned into a befuddled old man ranting himself into irrelevance. Amazingly obtuse for a psychiatrist on occasion.

But this is getting a bit political, so let me bite my tongue here. ;)

I don't like S.T. Joshi either. So sue me! :P

Avoosl Wuthoqquan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I used to think of Dalrymple as a much-needed
> voice of sanity, and I bought and thought highly
> of his first three books, but once his publishers
> stopped editing his work he quickly turned into a
> befuddled old man ranting himself into
> irrelevance. Amazingly obtuse for a psychiatrist
> on occasion.
>
> But this is getting a bit political, so let me
> bite my tongue here. ;)

Maybe he's OK for column-length pieces?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Avoosl Wuthoqquan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't like S.T. Joshi either. So sue me! :P


No problems there.

A bold self-promoter. Not unskilled or untalented, but...

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

James Kunstler's "Eyesore of the Month" feature provides abundant reminders of "sociological consciousness" in architecture.

[kunstler.com]

Soc. Cons. keeps replacing older buildings that suggest poetic consciousness. One can scroll down to see the difference.

Here's a gem for you. An arts center. It figures. It looks like a prison on an alien planet, if you ask me.

[www.floornature.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 16 Jul 21 | 09:32PM by Dale Nelson.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> James Kunstler's "Eyesore of the Month" feature
> provides abundant reminders of "sociological
> consciousness" in architecture.
>
> [kunstler.com]
> /?bib_page_offset=10
>
> Soc. Cons. keeps replacing older buildings that
> suggest poetic consciousness. One can scroll down
> to see the difference.
>
> Here's a gem for you. An arts center. It
> figures. It looks like a prison on an alien
> planet, if you ask me.
>
> [www.floornature.com]
> 8_archipelago-contemporary-arts-center-portugal_fu
> ll.jpg

Sweet Jesus!

Brutalism on steroids...

Yes. It looks like a place to go for punishment, not enrichment.

House of Pain...

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin & others, here's a quotation from
> Theodore Dalrymple for you.
>
> “Political correctness, ... purpose ... not to persuade or
> convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate;
> ... When people are forced to remain silent
> when they are being told the most obvious lies, or
> even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies
> themselves, they lose once and for all their sense
> of probity. .... One's standing to resist
> anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A
> society of emasculated ... is easy to control. ...”
>
>

I have noticed, here on Eldritch Dark and elsewhere, that people involved in publishing, or in the writing of books, are either politically correct, or else remain silent. It is unmistakable how they always guard their tongue. Same goes for people with various academic professions; all in order to protect their careers and reputations. One "slip of the tongue" may get you fired, banned, and stigmatized by the establishment for the rest of your life. Highly educated individuals in various well paid academic intellectual professions, actually find self-arguments and sophisticated convoluted mental paths of lying to themselves, denying society problems and dishonestly telling themselves that everything is good, avoiding any controversial thoughts or daring opinions. Because they have invested so much in their personal careers, and are extremely self-protective. In a way that lower paid exposed workers are unable to do, because they are more directly confronted with the society horrors and nightmares, and therefore often more honest, instinctive, and straightforward in their opinions. There are a few brave among the privileged, who dare speak out; and it usually ends their careers. They need an alternative backup to continue. And if they say "too" much, they will get eaten by the (((system))). More will speak out as things start tipping over into a new paradigm shift. We are social creatures, after all. And at that future point new issues will arise, with a few brave pioneer individuals struggling to speak out.

Sociological consciousness tends to intolerance.

[www.msn.com]

Now I am keeping in mind that ED is primarily a place for literary discussion rather than politics. I really hope we can grapple with the implications. If necessary, review my original posting, which certainly is not the last word, probably is a seriously flawed first word, but I tried to give us some ideas to work with.

Sociological consciousness, I'm saying, is the preferred mode of thinking for all of us at least some of the time. It's in the air we breathe. For some people it is just about the only mode of thinking: starting with many people in the so-called social sciences and the humanities in the academic world. Listen, I saw this for years as a college teacher. I saw how people like a colleague of mine whom I revere, long retired, who did teach and write from within poetic consciousness, were sidelined. For example, when a review of the freshman composition program was launched, this professor was deliberately not included; the fix was in. Students were steered away from this professor's courses, though students who did take them often praised them highly -- since some students actually do want to learn, and (when they took this teachers' classes) did learn.

Think again of that passage I quoted above from Arthur Machen. He remembers there the formation of imagination that was occurring as he read Sir Walter Scott. How alien that scenario is from the classroom you can imagine as being approved by "education activist" Nomani. For Nomani, children are (potentially) assets, even pawns, for the cause that (evidently) is her life, namely a sociological one.

Poetic consciousness does not generally subsist in a state of rancor. Name authors as different as Joseph Conrad and Jane Austen -- they are artists, not activists. The educational establishment cannot be trusted; indeed, it must be viewed with the suspicion that it has earned, and actions such as taking children or grandchildren out of school may be necessary for moral people.

But I see ED as a place where poetic consciousness can be developed, as we read and discuss the likes of Machen and de la Mare, and perhaps authors and works of art that nurtured them.

I hope you can walk under branches today.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 17 Jul 21 | 10:06AM by Dale Nelson.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sociological consciousness tends to intolerance.
>
> [www.msn.com]
> icial-says-let-them-die-about-parents-opposing-cri
> tical-race-theory/ar-AAMeYQQ?ocid=msedgntp

It's a pretty good example of the primacy of narrative. All it takes is for this lady to make a list of claims, completely unsupported by any sort of example--just take her word for it, she *knows*...and whatever you do, don't question her.

So we take her word as the proven premise, and ignore the demonstrated fact of her own stated intolerance. All within a matter of minutes.

And we are living in an age where this is not roundly laughed off of the platform, but is instead given self-righteous respect.

Me, I'd be embarrassed to death.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dale Nelson Wrote:

> Think again of that passage I quoted above from
> Arthur Machen. He remembers there the formation
> of imagination that was occurring as he read Sir
> Walter Scott. How alien that scenario is from the
> classroom you can imagine as being approved by
> "education activist" Nomani. For Nomani, children
> are (potentially) assets, even pawns, for the
> cause that (evidently) is her life, namely a
> sociological one.

I blundered here. Asra Nomani was actually critical of the education activist's hate speech. The name of the person emitting the hate speech was Michelle Leete.

Leete is quoted thus:

“Let’s deny this off-key band of people that are anti-education, anti-teacher, anti-equity, anti-history, anti-racial reckoning, anti-opportunities, anti-help people, anti-diversity, anti-platform, anti-science, anti-change agent, anti-social justice, anti-healthcare, anti-worker, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-children, anti-healthcare, anti-worker, anti-environment, anti-admissions policy change, anti-inclusion, anti-live-and-let live people. Let them die."

She is described as being an official of the NAACP.

[meaww.com]