Around Christmas I never read CAS. He has no connection with such genuinely atmospheric human traditions. At this time I like to seek back to the feeling of our blissful roots (be it Christmas, or further back). And therefore it is better to choose Lovecraft, who loved this, in spite of his contemptuous abyssmal horrors pressing close. Every Christmas Eve I read The Festival, and some of his poems such as Old Christmas and Festival.

I read CAS only in the madness of the spaces between the holidays.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 19 Dec 04 | 01:28PM by Ludde.

This reminds me, I should speak to some folks about CAS at Christmas time. Perhaps Herr Doktor Bauer might enlighten and entertain us a bit? Bitte sehr? :) (Excuse the German, too much Stille Nacht, Heilige Nacht.....)
Scott

God Jul & Gott Nytt År

to all you here patrons of good taste in art and literature.

Clark Ashton Smith along with Lovecraft are probably the two most central writers in connection to this forum, since they had a close communication and interchange of ideas, and were the two single greatest writers of weird fiction, Lovecraft for his wide understanding of human culture and society, natural sciences, and in that context his very atmospheric feeling for the weird; and Smith for his erudition, his imagination and genuinely otherworldly touches.

I have been munching ginger cookies and had a few glasses of hot spiced wine, and will say something I normally would not say but have often thought about. It is great art (although not accepted as such by the elite establishment), but still, who reads these writers? My guess is that all attracted to their stories, myself included, are deeply disillusioned, have had painful childhoods, and lead rather frustrating lives. What is gained from reading these writers? Do they lead further into disillusion and confusion, leaving the stability of mundane life further behind, or can they offer a firm and lasting satisfaction in alternate pleasures and wisdom from that which is worldly, stout, and normally accepted by society and the narrowminded politically correct herd? Or is it a deliciously decadent pleasure, leading to selfdestructiveness, like entering into the Singing Flame, or following the lamia to her cot?




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 26 Dec 04 | 03:48AM by Ludde.

Ludde!

I believe that you may be erring in regards to those who read HPL and CAS. I may have had a poor childhood, but it had plenty of good points. If anything, since I remember so little about it, I must state that it must have had little too good or too bad to be truly memorable.

I have also had disillusionment, but I have also seen much splendid in life. The friendliness of most here on the forum is one example of an illusion we can live with, if illusion it be. I like people, irregardless of humanity's faults, and I genuinely look forward to each new day.

As for a frustrating life, adapting to schizophrenia has had its frustrations, as has adapting to life on a disability pension, but I accept my life's limitations, and I have fun, and I soar when and where I can. I may not live the ideal life, I may be alone, with no kids, but I am happy in my own way, and I endeavour to make this world a little better, even if only by cheering up my friends and acquaintances, for whom I hold an abiding respect and affection.

As an atheist, although I hold that life has no inherent meaning, as is supplied by adherence to a credo or article of faith, I still nonetheless impart meaning that I choose to place in it, a meaning, further, that is consonant with the fellow that I am and have become. I live, essentially, in harmony with myself and my world, and I feel -- most times -- a deep and intense serenity and peace, more so than when I believed in a God.

So, on the whole, I scarcely fit into your pattern. Ask S. T. Joshi whether he fits in, or even Dr. F, and I'm sure you would find they scarecly fit in. As for my other fellows, speak up, and let us both find out....

Ludde Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Clark Ashton Smith along with Lovecraft are
> probably the two most central writers in
> connection to this forum, since they had a close
> communication and interchange of ideas, and were
> the two single greatest writers of weird fiction,
> Lovecraft for his wide understanding of human
> culture and society, natural sciences, and in that
> context his very atmospheric feeling for the
> weird; and Smith for his erudition, his
> imagination and genuinely otherworldly touches.
>
> I have been munching ginger cookies and had a
> few glasses of hot spiced wine,

My advice is to lay off of the cookies...

> and will say
> something I normally would not say but have often
> thought about. It is great art (although not
> accepted as such by the elite establishment), but
> still, who reads these writers? My guess is that
> all attracted to their stories, myself included,
> are deeply disillusioned, have had painful
> childhoods, and lead rather frustrating lives.

Interesting...

Sometime back, I characterized why I enjoyed watching David Lynch files, for example. It's because I wanted the stimulation of his characters, but didn't actually want to meet, or have anything to do with anyone in real life who remotely resembles, e.g., Frank, from Blue Velvet.

I am after a vicarious thrill. In reading the two authors you mention, I find not only a vicarious thrill, but intellectual stimulation in both. In the case of Lovecraft, his cosmology is quite modern: he seems to be a strict materialist, and this believe in the possibility of multitudinal unverses, and his banging around the idea of infinity, lead inevitably to the implaction that we are Not Alone, and that which was recognizaed as thr supernatural are really manifestations of natural law, either beyond our understandings of it, or utterly beyond the bounds of physics that would operate within this universe. Quite stimulating to attempt to reconcile these aspects!

Smith I read for a) his sense of overarching destiny (prophecies are common, and they are fulfilled); the gosh-darned *beautiful* use of very unusual, but very visual, vocabulary, and c) his very ironic sense of humor.

I read both of them to escape the world of SW engineering, which needs to be more precise and deterministic, and abstract, than is truly enjoyable, except on an intellectual plane, and only in failry limited bursts.


> What is gained from reading these writers? Do they
> lead further into disillusion and confusion,
> leaving the stability of mundane life further
> behind, or can they offer a firm and lasting
> satisfaction in alternate pleasures and wisdom
> from that which is worldly, stout, and normally
> accepted by society and the narrowminded
> politically correct herd? Or is it a deliciously
> decadent pleasure, leading to selfdestructiveness,
> like entering into the Singing Flame, or following
> the lamia to her cot?

I don't know about the lamaea (sp?): it seems pretty harmless to me.

Scott Connors Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This reminds me, I should speak to some folks
> about CAS at Christmas time. Perhaps Herr Doktor
> Bauer might enlighten and entertain us a bit?
> Bitte sehr? :) (Excuse the German, too much
> Stille Nacht, Heilige Nacht.....)
> Scott

Dear Scott et al,j
Clark was amenable to the common amenities of the season, responding to the standard salutations courteously, but his
primary delight in the season were those mulled comestibles which one might enjoy with burgundy or cider - and which many of one's friends were happy to share. Carol was more prone to activiate something resembling traditional festive decor (barely). It is an especially good excuse for a party, of course, and there is an abundance of quite excellent Handel being performed all over the place, with free admission. As to the cosmic significance of the season, Clark was less than enthusiastic, though wise enough not to pursue conversation publicly about his views.
Small note as to what sort of folk read CAS - the writer following your post suggests the readership is made up of those who have been massively disillusioned -- I think not - rather those who have faced disullusionment, fought past its tricks and smokescreens to a higher reality -- Clark is not a nihilist.

frohliches funfte tage des Weihnact mit seiner Goldenen Ringen, und ein frohes neujahr!

Ludde Wrote:
> who reads these writers? My guess is that
> all attracted to their stories, myself included,
> are deeply disillusioned, have had painful
> childhoods, and lead rather frustrating lives.
> What is gained from reading these writers?

Intriguing questions. My childhood wasn't painful, but somewhat solitary and largely spent in the company of adults (I was not an only child, but my sole sibling is 18 years older. I do find life frustrating at times, but that is largely my fault in that I have problems adjusting to its "mundane" aspects. Like a Lovecraftian hero I occasionally have intimations of something "beyond" but can't turn that into adherence to a religious faith.

I add Arthur Machen to the list, by the way. I think these writers offer mental recreation and a place to spread the wings of imagination. I find their worlds very vivid; decadent perhaps, horrific certainly, but there is something reassuring about horror that can be contained within the pages of a book and turned to at our leisure. If this is a vice, it's an extremely harmless one. Perhaps people might search for similar pleasures through drugs; but there they really are in the lamia's cot.

Happy New Year, everyone!

Voleboy,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. You seem to have a cheerful mind in spite of the difficulties you mention. It sounds as if you have come to terms with obstacles, and gained real and useful wisdom, that leads you to bright spots. It is inspiring.

As for atheism, I agree, it is a choosen attitude of approach to life that has rewarding qualities, like taking charge and resolutely acting out & persuing ones needs, instead of sitting around waiting for good things to happen;
Belief in God can easily slip into passiveness and supersticious hopes that that things will go ones way, with dissapointment as an inevitable result, followed by further desperate prayers for things to turn. Futility.

Still, I think that a quiet belief in God can be a help in difficult times, more so than a strict atheist determination. That is because I believe the natural Universe function as a gigantic, infinitely complex, chemical reaction, with every event an inevitable result of earlier events (possibly with intervention of spiritual matter, which itself may follow similar inevitable ways). In this process the act of prayer or meditation to "God", a sincere will of handing over, helps tone in to the natural flow of events (God might be nothing more than an abstract description of this central balance), instead of resisting and fighting them with ones ever argumenting surface thoughts; it is a way of surrendering to ones subconscious deepest intuition (cosmic connected mind) that knows the best way to harmonious solutions (which of course may include hard conscious work) and eventually brings this knowledge to the surface thoughts.
On the other hand this mental state of surrendering to deeper wisdom, in touch with the flow of things and ones personal potentials, can be achieved by an atheist too. The idea of God is only a vehicle to get there. But as said, a vehicle that is easily misunderstood to be a separate intervening entity of projected fatherly qualities, and with good intentions exclusively for human interests. This is the view of the small mind, that sees humanity as center of everything, at the opposite pole of the cosmic mind.

Sorry if I sound complicating, but that is how my mind keeps going.

Sawfish,

-"Lovecraft..", "seems to be a strict materialist, and this believe", "...that which was recognizaed as thr supernatural are really manifestations of natural law, either beyond our understandings of it, or utterly beyond the bounds of physics that would operate within this universe. Quite stimulating to attempt to reconcile these aspects!"

Yes! I agree!
Although I don't think Lovecraft saw any natural explanations for ghosts and the like other than overactive imagination and superstition, at least he claimed so in his letters. He only used it in his stories to create an illusion, invoke atmosphere, and stir our supernatural fears. In regard to space and physics he was probably more openminded.
But I think Smith said he believed in spirits, and had had a personal encounter.

-"I don't know about the lamaea (sp?): it seems pretty harmless to me."

hehe... Harmless?! Lucky fellow, no teethmarks. Well, you sound like a rather carefree soul, so maybe I was not completely right in my guessing.

-"I read both of them to escape the world of SW engineering,".

I read them because I believe their worlds to be more real than the confusion of our present modern society. They have a sense of balance between elements, insight into events and behaviour, and understanding of the importance of beauty and ethics, that has been lost in the mundane world. I only spend time in the world to get impressions that will enrich the experience of art. I avoid modern materialism as much as I can, although it isn't entirely possible, and flee to the forrest and sea and the remains of oldtime culture.
And I read them as a compensation for my social inablity to handle communication with ordinary people.

Mikey_C wrote:
-"I add Arthur Machen to the list, by the way."
Here is perhaps even more horror and shadow, but what a sense of beauty to balance it!

I wonder what made Smith so very preoccupied with death, sepulchers, and the corruption of the worm. If it was from sad childhood experiences, along with exceptional sensitiveness, or perhaps mainly from litterary impressions such as Poe?
I may have sounded as if I see Lovecraft's and Smith's writings as only dreariness, but that is not so.
I am amazed at Smith's eye for beauty and familiarity with an endless number of things, even though he lived isolated near a small community in the mountains. For example, yesterday I was reading Isle of the Torturers, and could feel the wind filling the sails and the murmurous sea around the boat's hull. Many people of today, who have traveled around the world again and again in hysteric search of exotic experiences probable haven't even noticed such details as he describes.

In my post above I simplified things to provoke reaction.

calonlan wrote:
-"Small note as to what sort of folk read CAS - the writer following your post suggests the readership is made up of those who have been massively disillusioned -- I think not - rather those who have faced disullusionment, fought past its tricks and smokescreens to a higher reality..."

I was going to come to something like that. No one escapes pain in life. We all share this. And even if some are blessed with more inner harmony and easier start from the beginning, disillusionment will come sooner or later, to all physically manifested life.
But those with rougher background often are forced to meet greater challenge to reach other depths of reality, beyond the simplest grovelling animal pleasures and disappointments.












Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 3 Jan 05 | 05:22AM by Ludde.

As for CAS' preoccupation with death, et al., perhaps one source was the precarious health of his youth, and another in the circumstances of his lifetime -- World Wars, influenza epidemic, living in rural circumstances where such is relatively common -- both of which would have impressed themselves upon a sensitive youth. Forget not that there was the early influence of Poe, and that would have helped.

Quote:

Forget not that there was the early influence of Poe, and that would have helped.

It's also important to recall in this regard the influence of the work of Thomas Lovell Beddoes, although I have no idea at what age CAS first read Beddoes's poetry.

Ludde Wrote:

<SNIP MUCH>

>
> Sawfish,
>
> -"Lovecraft..", "seems to be a strict materialist,
> and this believe", "...that which was recognizaed
> as thr supernatural are really manifestations of
> natural law, either beyond our understandings of
> it, or utterly beyond the bounds of physics that
> would operate within this universe. Quite
> stimulating to attempt to reconcile these
> aspects!"
>
> Yes! I agree!
> Although I don't think Lovecraft saw any natural
> explanations for ghosts and the like other than
> overactive imagination and superstition, at least
> he claimed so in his letters. He only used it in
> his stories to create an illusion, invoke
> atmosphere, and stir our supernatural fears. In
> regard to space and physics he was probably more
> openminded.
> But I think Smith said he believed in spirits, and
> had had a personal encounter.
>
> -"I don't know about the lamaea (sp?): it seems
> pretty harmless to me."
>
> hehe... Harmless?! Lucky fellow, no teethmarks.
> Well, you sound like a rather carefree soul,

...that's what the prison gurads say, too.

> so
> maybe I was not completely right in my guessing.

Who knows?

>
> -"I read both of them to escape the world of SW
> engineering,".
>
> I read them because I believe their worlds to be
> more real than the confusion of our present modern
> society. They have a sense of balance between
> elements, insight into events and behaviour, and
> understanding of the importance of beauty and
> ethics, that has been lost in the mundane world. I
> only spend time in the world to get impressions
> that will enrich the experience of art. I avoid
> modern materialism as much as I can, although it
> isn't entirely possible, and flee to the forrest
> and sea and the remains of oldtime culture.
> And I read them as a compensation for my social
> inablity to handle communication with ordinary
> people.
>

Interesting...

I'm finding life to be increasingly easy to understand, and coming to the conclusion that I tended to "over-think" it a good deal of the time. It amounts to this: you are born, gradually become sentient, become strong and mature, then get old, weaken, and eventually die. This is the same fate that is shared by any lowly toad or salamander, the difference being that we are cognizant of it for the better part of our lives, and think we can resist it. This alters tremendously the way we use whatever amount of time we have.

During your time you can try to resist this inevitable course--and some even burn away their time in service to philosophies that try to tell you that the reality is something other than what I described--or you can sort of learn to ignore distractions and get on with plowing through life, having as good a time as you can, without seriously damaging the machinery, er, ah, defiling the temple that is your corporeal self.

Really, it's as simple as that, but social pressure makes it oh-so-hard to do. For example: how motivated are you to send relief to the tsunami zone? Do you think about it a lot, dithering away a few hours/days/weeks of your finite existence over an issue that affects you materially not at all? (Of course, if it *does* affect you materially, get on with it, because that, by definition, makes it important).

When I was about 35-40 I gradually learned why humaninty voluntarily formed into units not much larger than tribes. Beyond that, it was much less voluntary. You can see what affects you and act on it, at that scale. Beyond that you are essentially powerless. Things that happen outside of the tribe may be of some value (you gradully learn to recognize that, when the tribe upstream gets sick, it's best not to drink the water), but for the most part, it's like seeing roadkill: interesting, but of no lasting importance.

The idea of the "brotherhood of man" is so vague that one can never feel any degree of closure in dealing problems of strangers, half a world away, whom you don't know and never will. At best, you'll have to either go there yourself (if such is your sense of guilt), or rely on an intermediary to tell you that your help worked, or not--that more, much, much more, is needed of you.

You can, however, help your neighbor start his car, your brother build a house, your co-worker get shitfaced when his wife leaves him. If your boss' tie catches fire from the chafing dish at the Christmas party, you can promptly put it out--or not. Scoping your life like this leads to many , many more satisfying and unambiguous life experiences.

In short, a happy, satisfying life.



--Sawfish

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

Sawfish wrote: -"...that's what the prison gurads say, too."

Is that a joke, like being in the "nuthouse"? Or are you in prison? Why? Would you share a few thoughts about this experience?

Your new outlook on life sounds very sensible, even though it seems like the materialist's and atheist's point of view. I will save some of its essence in my memory.

I am sure it is a good outlook, as long as you are also practically in touch with the spiritual side of life, the subtle unmeasurable dimensions not seen with the bodily senses. Of course, you mention caring for the individuals around you, and as long as you fully can handle that as a true insight it will be alright. Otherwise I am afraid this kind of anti-philosophy 'could' form a lifestyle leading into prison as a last stop.

The pure egoist could easily feel comfortable in that philosophy (it is a philosophy, like any other. There is nothing wrong with philosophizing, it is a way of learning to understand what seems confused, growing and maturing, and it will eventually lead to more relaxing and security). What I miss in it, is more concentration on the fact that we are social beings, interconnected. Interconnected with every living thing, (even the trees... we breath what they breath out and visa versa). No one is on his own. And when you treat others you simultaneously treat yourself in the same way. We are actually one big organism, where harm to one part affect all other parts in some way, eventually if not directly. Here I agree with you that ordinary people do best in caring for their close community, since other longway "caring" is a fruitlees, grinding mental frustration if allowed to dominate the mind. And of course one should care for oneself.

Lovecraft truly understood the importance of social interconnection, and it was an integrite part of him. He understood it from deductions of his scientific and philosophical knowledge. But Lovecraft was extremely intelligent, and composed of much knowledge from wide sources; and I doubt most people can come to such integrite conclusions from purely practical thinking, without either an experience from childhood of good treatment or a spiritual belief. Lovecraft thought that Christianity was good because it held the masses at bay from delving into too much destructive egoism.
In our modern new society of liberalism, Christianity is loosing ground. Everyone is to be "free" to form his own view of life. No set values. And with no common moral values to guide the community kaos results.

p.s. Perhaps we should stop this discussion. It is seems to be going outside the area of this forum.







Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11 Jan 05 | 08:09AM by Ludde.

Ludde Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish wrote: -"...that's what the prison gurads
> say, too."
>
> Is that a joke, like being in the "nuthouse"? Or
> are you in prison? Why? Would you share a few
> thoughts about this experience?

Hah, hah! No, it's a joke, Ludde. Just a feeble attempt at ironic humor.

You don't think I'd tell you if I were actually in prison by suggesting that the guards had commented on my well-adjusted behavior, do you? More likely, I would proclaim my innocence, and comment on the brutality of the guards...

>
> Your new outlook on life sounds very sensible,
> even though it seems like the materialist's and
> atheist's point of view. I will save some of its
> essence in my memory.
>
> I am sure it is a good outlook, as long as you are
> also practically in touch with the spiritual side
> of life, the subtle unmeasurable dimensions not
> seen with the bodily senses. Of course, you
> mention caring for the individuals around you, and
> as long as you fully can handle that as a true
> insight it will be alright. Otherwise I am afraid
> this kind of anti-philosophy 'could' form a
> lifestyle leading into prison as a last stop.

Could be, except for the part about attempting to help those around you *whom you know*.

>
> The pure egoist could easily feel comfortable in
> that philosophy (it is a philosophy, like any
> other. There is nothing wrong with philosophizing,
> it is a way of learning to understand what seems
> confused, growing and maturing, and it will
> eventually lead to more relaxing and security).
> What I miss in it, is more concentration on the
> fact that we are social beings, interconnected.

Let's not get too general in this vague description of interconnection. I've seen far too many people swallow this completely, wholey, and without question.

I am saying that scoping is everything, as regards how one might live one's life in a satisfying and fulfilling manner. Let me explain.

In 188<something>, Krakatoa went off, killing thousands. It was months before most people knew of it, if they ever heard of it, at all. This huge and catastrophic loss of human life affected in lessening degree: the victims themselves; their immediate survivors; those who knew the victims and survivors; those who had economic ties with the victims and survivors; those who had economic tiwes with those who had economic ties with the victims and survivors. To the rest of humanity--and that is the vast majority--this loss affected them in no material way. The greatest material affect was a temporary change in the weather--and that, I'm sure you'll agree, had no causal connection with the loss of human life.

Why do I use this as an example? Quite simply because it illustrates how much of Western humanity tends to do a number on itself. The loss to the victims and those related to them was very real: they required no one to inform them of the catastrophe, nor did they need an itermediary to tell them that they had cause to feel sad. However, for the farmer in Arkansas, he would require both the information of the disaster, AND an intermediary to tell him that he should, in fact, feel bad about something that his inistincts tell him to ignore as meaningless. I don't know about how it is where you live, but around here (Oregon, USA), I can tune in any number of religion-based TV channels that are, guess what? telling me about a heretofore unknown calamity ("the folks in central Africa are suffering from lack of prayerbooks"), and telling me that I should feel just *terrible* about it. I should feel bad enough to send some money "to support our mission to the good Chrsitians of central Africa".

You see, legitmate or not, I can feel no *actual* connection unless I am told to. The natural connection is non-existent.

An orthogonal leap, now.

I seldom wish to quote any "authority", since it seems to me to be a way of arguing that absoloute knowledge is held by some, to be dispensed at their suffrance to those they deem worthy. That sounds suspiciouly like a priestly hierarchy, doesn't it? The exception is when I hear a bit of advice that is so correct that I'd like to steal it, and claim it as my own, but the source of the advice/observation is so well-known that I am afraid to make public use of it without attribution. I'd like to steal it and use it, you see, but I'm afraid that I wouldn't get away with it.

A lot of early Buddhism is like this. It seems to me that it is principally a bunch of advice for how not to make yourself needlessly unhappy--and doesn't this sound like the antithesis of the person who wrings his/her hands in guilt, in New York City, over the Rwanda business some years back? Doesn't it seem that reading about massacres on the other side of the world amongst folks with whom you have no material ties, at all, and stridently developing an ulcer over it, seem like a vertiable insult to no less a philosopher than Siddhattha, his own self? And what, pray tell, could the denizen of the Westside do about it, in any significant sense, to alter the situation there? I'd say that they can do essentially nothing for those involved, but they can, however, make themselves feel like richer, more noble individuals by public breastbeating, then giving some minor token to an itermediary who assures him/her that this token will, indeed, help.

Naturally, there are practical, material lessons to be learned from these tragedies, such as trying to spot potential trouble early, and taking steps to avoid it, but to think that there is a meaningful connection thru which one such individual may consistently and reliably touch another is pure wishful thinking, just waiting to be exploited by the more cynical among us.

This situation reverse itself however, when you focus your energies on actual connections close-at-hand. My co-worker was laid-off; I can join with other co-workers still employed and get money to him (if he'll take it) and this will help him to send his kids to the school he felt was so important to their future. This is a profound material benefit, and I can see it happening without the need for an intermediary. I can therefore worry *a lot* about those close at hand, whom I care about, and offer material/spiritual help that is both effecvtive and genuinely need, rather than offering ineffective material help to a stranger (whom, given the *extremely unlikely* opportunity to meet, I may actively dislike/disrespect) to be admisinstered by an intermediary whose motives could easily fall under the scrutiny of conflict-of-interest statutes, were he a financial advisor.

Is all this clear?


> Interconnected with every living thing, (even the
> trees... we breath what they breath out and visa
> versa). No one is on his own. And when you treat
> others you simultaneously treat yourself in the
> same way. We are actually one big organism, where
> harm to one part affect all other parts in some
> way, eventually if not directly. Here I agree with
> you that ordinary people do best in caring for
> their close community, since other longway
> "caring" is a fruitlees, grinding mental
> frustration if allowed to dominate the mind. And
> of course one should care for oneself.
>
> Lovecraft truly understood the importance of
> social interconnection, and it was an integrite
> part of him. He understood it from deductions of
> his scientific and philosophical knowledge. But
> Lovecraft was extremely intelligent, and composed
> of much knowledge from wide sources; and I doubt
> most people can come to such integrite conclusions
> from purely practical thinking, without either an
> experience from childhood of good treatment or a
> spiritual belief. Lovecraft thought that
> Christianity was good because it held the masses
> at bay from delving into too much destructive
> egoism.

From reading Lovecraft's letters, I can respect his intelligence, but in no way would I want to use him for a guru.

> In our modern new society of liberalism,
> Christianity is loosing ground. Everyone is to be
> "free" to form his own view of life. No set
> values. And with no common moral values to guide
> the community kaos results.

I agree that blind adherence to positive religious doctrine serves as a benefit to social order. This is one of the ironies of life that amuses me to no end, and convinces me that humanity is still pretty animalistic.

>
> p.s. Perhaps we should stop this discussion. It is
> seems to be going outside the area of this forum.

Two points:

1) where might we continue it; and

2) it's not like we're wasting bandwidth on the Forum, you know. This is the first traffic I've seen on it in about two weeks.

I tried my best, I really did, to get something going about a week or so ago, but no response.

Quote:

the fact that we are social beings, interconnected. Interconnected with every living thing, (even the trees... we breath what they breath out and visa versa). No one is on his own. And when you treat others you simultaneously treat yourself in the same way. We are actually one big organism

I'm squarely with Sawfish on this one. Tend your own garden, and please, no generalizations about "we" or "us". There is no "we" or "us"! The notion of a "common humanity", a single and unitary species, is one of the most pernicious, uncritically held, and pervasive memes in existence.

Sawfish,

I can't keep up with you. I am too slow and tired. I am not as sharp as I'd like to be.

You might also try the Jack Vance discussion board. It is more lighthearted, but they have some intelligent discussions.




Kyberean wrote: -"Tend your own garden, and please, no generalizations about "we" or "us"." OK, I will try.

When I say a thing the words only partly captures my idea. I don't simply believe in a "single unitary species". I am aware of the difficulties that cultural differences make for communication and relating, which is the issue I believe you are driving at when you so heatedly critisise me.

When I speak of "interconnection between people", I mostly mean meetings on the psyco-social level in close vicininty, both with people we know and with people we have just brushed by, and how it affects both giver and taker.
When I speak of "all functioning as one big organism", I mostly think of a biological physical interconnection (without mixing in moral), how all of us (sorry Kyberean) affect the environment with our doings, like CO2 coming out of the mouth, excrements feeding the soil, worms turning the soil so vegetation can grow, insects cleaning the ground from rotting things, the trees giving 'me' (that's better!) O2, etc... The closer in viscinity, the bigger and more direct affect, of course. The affect on me of the doings of one tiny organism at the other side of the Earth, is of course infinitely small, and not even worth mentioning. Still if a man dies in Kina it will affect the amount of CO2 in the air one tiny weenie bit, and it might also affect the Global weather situation from the lack of heat that earlier radiated from his body, warming up the air while he was still alive (analogous to the famous case of the butterfly beating its wings and stirring the air, starting a chain reaction eventually leading to a storm). Isn't my silly reasoning convincing? :) By the way, the human body is also like a group of separate organisms interconnected, namely the different cells, which millions of years ago did not hold together in that complex unit which the human body is, but swam separately in water, and gradually grouped together.

Ludde:

My apologies if you took my remarks as a heated personal criticism. That wasn't my intention at all.

My objection was not to the ecological aspects that you stress in your most recent post, but to the characterization of "man" as a "social animal", rather than as a "socialized", or "socially conditioned", animal. To me, the distinction is a crucial one.

Kyberian,

OK. Thanks. I tend to come into heated discussions myself sometimes, and often make the mistake of projecting my own behavior onto others. Sorry. :)

I just want to add one detail to my ecological comments above. It may be banal, but I still want to say it to further clearify my thoughts. I see the Earth, the planet, as a unified living organism consisting of smaller integrate parts (much like the human body in a smaller perspective is with its cells). A large living organism, with tissues like grass, wood, rock, soil; with the seas and winds functioning as bloodstream; and all the little animals on the planet's surface moving about like bloodcells through the tissues, carrying minerals, nutrition and slag back and forth, mixing and replenishing every area so that the different life components are continually fed with their individual needs.

As for "social animal" and "socialized animal", they are two differnt things. I agree that the political correctness of the journalists that dominate newspapers and TV news try to brainwash us into oversocialisation, where each and every one of us is supposed to carry all the world's problems on our shoulders. I think that unfortunately is a result of the not so enlightened priests in the Christian Church having dominated our minds over several hundred years, planting in guilt.

Man is a curious animal (but not much more curious than the other apes), and we can choose pretty much how we want to live. Still I believe that man is mainly a "social animal", like most warmblooded animals, especially those with similar body fat and female womb as we, the elephants, seals and whales. Man is not like an insect, living entirely alone, only feeding, mindlessly observing the stars through the night, meeting another insect only to copulate, leaving the kids on a branch without even seeing them, and going off on its own again. A man living like that would be in the abyss of madness.

(Well, Smith may have tasted some of that seclusion, but he was far from isolated. He had his parents, met people in town, had loves, and corresponded.)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12 Jan 05 | 03:20AM by Ludde.

Quote:

Man is not like an insect, living entirely alone, only feeding, mindlessly observing the stars through the night, meeting another insect only to copulate, leaving the kids on a branch without even seeing them, and going off on its own again. A man living like that would be in the abyss of madness.

One can live essentially alone, but not mindlessly, it is true. Hermits, anchorites and the like have lived alone, however, and are far from being all mad, in my view. Indeed, many of them may have risen to levels of consciousness and spirituality unattainable to those trapped in the "human aquarium". And, of course, let us also recall CAS's wise words on the subject of sanity: "Sanity is the madness of the greatest number".

My view--and extremely unpopular it is, to be sure--is that the alleged "social instincts" of what is rather simplistically called the "human species" are greatly over-stated. Humans are so conditioned by socialization into their particular culture, and taught to subordinate themselves to the collective under fear of punishment, that we have very little idea of what instincts and primal impulses truly lie at the heart of this animal.

That said, humans, to me, are more like wolves: They are equipped to function either as pack animals or as loners. The difference is that, for whatever reason, far fewer humans than wolves seem able to function essentially alone. It remains a viable possibility for the few, however, and part of my definition of the "higher man", in the Nietzschean sense of that term, would include choosing the essentially, although not entirely, solitary path, away from the human herd.

Gotta love this:

"But beside being Catholic and anti-rationalist, Tolkien was, more importantly, a bad writer. His most famous book, The Lord of the Rings, epitomizes what Europeans would see as the worst failings of American popular culture: it is sentimental, shallow, and two-dimensional.5 His attempt to flee the American present in some ways carries America with it, and that is one of the ironies of fantasy literature: its most popular, and least subtle, exponent is European, while one of its greatest and most subtle is not merely American but Californian, living and dying in the most "future-crazed"6 state of all: Clark Ashton Smith was born in 1893 in Long Valley, near Sacramento, and died in 1961 a few miles north in Auburn."

My only qualifications would be, "California" remains both primitive and futurist; and CAS is to be located not in the hip coastal region, but within the interior/anterior Central Valley.

It would be interesting to know the author of this strange quotation.
I had the very considerable good fortune to have taken a master class in philological studies with Dr. Toldien in 1963 (I missed Lewis by just a little because he died that year). Dr. Tolkien's work is only shallow to the shallow. It is, however, exactly what he set out to accomplish - an exploration of the inner functioning of language, including those characteristics that emerged in the beginning - such as
the onomotopoetic elements: the sound of the babe at the breast, and the nearly universal sound of the word for "mother" in all but 3 languages; and his other purpose: to provide an inward experience of the essence of the magisterium of the Roman Catholic church (side note: those who use the word "Catholic" without the adjective, betray a lack of understanding of the nature and intent of the word): For example: the elves "waybread" is, as Sam observes, not particularly tasty, but strangely satisfying and seems to provide greater strength the longer one depends upon it alone; that this is a clear reference to Eucharist is almost too obvious.
These are matters necessary to comprehend before entering into a critique of these writings. I recall a little line from Byron's "Thoughts on a College Examination" which speaks of student critics who "...prate 'gainst that which they ne'er could imitate".

I agree with a previous writer, however, that this strain is rather far afield, and likely to produce dissension, rather than enlightenment. One of Clark's sayings, well remembered, is that "we must deal gently with our illusions, in the hope that one day they will deal gently with us."

Quote:

It would be interesting to know the author of this strange quotation.

Simply click below.

[www.eldritchdark.com]

Another eccentric quotation:

"Dr. Tolkien's work is only shallow to the shallow."

...and, only profound to the profound, n'est-ce pas?

"It is, however, exactly what he set out to accomplish - an exploration of the inner functioning of language, including those characteristics that emerged in the beginning..."

So much for analysis of fiction qua fiction.

dr. mef

I suspect Dr. Tolkien's is profound because it is profound. I have found it an enriching experience to reread nearly every year(as I do a handful of other books - Kazantzakis, T.E. Lawrence for example) for
more than 40 years. Certain works are inexhaustible in their wisdom, simply because we our selves by the passage of time alone, and considerable study and thinking have occured, have changed. Who among thinking folk have not found the certainties of youth become shadowy, and the dimly perceived come into sharp relief by hammer blows of time and experience. However, I don't think treating Tolkien's work as fiction is terribly useful (or as fantasy) - it's intent is mythological, and, as such to express truths that are the province of mythology. I wish I could recall in detail, the rather involved discussion we once had in a class with Robert Graves, who surely understood the matter most profoundly - and he was a resource to whom I still turn in awe and amazement - his scholarship was stupendous. I might add incidentally that I have written elsewhere of Clark's appreciation of Graves' "The White Goddess", which I shared with him after meeting Dr. Graves in 1960 - He had read the work some years before, and the reminder caused him to exclaim that "at last I see, I have served the 'white goddess' my whole life without realizing it."
This was a moment of great delight in my memory for us both.
Thanks for helping bring it to mind.
drf

calonlan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > It would be interesting to know the author of
> this strange quotation.

The whole article is eccentric to the extreme, but enjoyably so, I must say. It makes a whole lot more sense if 'Disney' is read for 'Tolkien'. Overall one would have to remark that Tolkien vs CAS isn't exactly comparing like with like. Perhaps the use of language is the most useful comparison - JRRT self-consciously preferring Anglo-Saxon roots, whilst CAS opted for Latin. LOTR's language is indeed pedestrian compared to CAS's jewel-like prose. Personally I would be more interested see a comparison drawn with Robert E Howard; there was a man who had an epic in him - what a tragedy he didn't live to write it.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Quote:Forget not that there was the early
> influence of Poe, and that would have helped.
>
> It's also important to recall in this regard the
> influence of the work of Thomas Lovell Beddoes,
> although I have no idea at what age CAS first read
> Beddoes's poetry.

Smith had read Beddoes by a fairly early age, before the publication of THE STAR-TREADER.

Scott

I have to agree with Dr. F. I do believe most definitely that Tolkien should be read in a mythological light. If you do some research, many of his borrowings, or shall I say, additions to previous myths, are from Northern mythologies.

Many of his names for characters come directly from Nordic myth, especially dwarven names.


Snorri Sturluson lists dwarven names, among them are those you may recognize from Tolkien's works: Nyi, Nidi, Nordi, Sudri, Austri, Vestri, Althjof, Dvalin, Bifur, Bafur, Bombor, Nori, Oinn, Mjodvitnir, Vig, Gandalf, Vindalf, Thorin, Fili, Kili, Funden, Vali, Thror, etc. (The list goes on for several more lines). Besides dwarves, elves are also mythological beings who are characters in Nordic myths. They are, even, a bit more diverse than Tolkien's elves in that there is a distinction between them and their lands. Examples of this would be: Alfheim (the land of the light elves) and Svartalfheim (the land of the dark elves).
It is also helpful to rememeber that Nordic myth also contained Midgard or middle earth.

On a side note, it has also been argued that Leminkainen of the Kalevala is the inspiration for Gandalf. I currently read this series of runos and I must say that the similarlities are rather profound especially in regard to their age and use of magic.

What Dr. F mentioned about the elven bread can also be viewed, by those of us who are non-believers, as mythological substance in Tolkien's work. Even the whole theme of the return of the king is a strong tale type in fairy tales, mythology, and hero tales (such as in the Lai d'Havelock).

Personally, I do not think it is a matter of whether Tolkien is shallow or not, after all, his work is laden with many themes and truths which have enriched and inspired people for centuries. The real questions I have regarding Tolkien is his originality. He could have been more original on the one hand, yet it may have been his agenda to reinterpret myths in such way, so as to create a saga that everyone could enjoy and find depth in. I am ambivalent about this.

Forgive me for my ramblings,

Alycia

Edited for hasty spelling. ;)




Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 15 Jan 05 | 09:40PM by NightHalo.

Your observations are quite correct, nighthalo - of course an "unbeliever" may read the works with pleasure and reward; nevertheless, in his correspondence and open conversation he unabashedly acknowledges the desire to create a mythology peculiarly
for the english speaking isles, and most specifically as an apologetic for R. Catholicism. That he was immersed in Nordic themes and languages, particularly Finnish is clearly in his notes. Readings in the Heimskringla, the Eddas, Burnt Njal and other nordic works ring familiar to any Tolkienite. Numerous works have explored his work without having studied T's own notes - in the 50's there were some who attempted to even found a new religion based on the work - Students on campuses around the country were deciding who were Hobbits and who were Elf-Lords etc. - missing the point entirely, but natheless, reading the books intently. It is interesting that only in the very recent past with a revival of a more general interest in Irish history in particular and Celtic history in general that folk who had been youthful fans of Conan, realized that RE Howard had "borrowed" wholesale from that mythology and "history", and that Conan is largely
Cucullain, just not dying at 17.
drf

"I suspect Dr. Tolkien's is profound because it is profound. "

And a tautology is a tautology, regardless of what is ignored (or, who states it).

"I have found it an enriching experience to reread nearly every year(as I do a handful of other books - Kazantzakis, T.E. Lawrence for example) for
more than 40 years. Certain works are inexhaustible in their wisdom, simply because we our selves by the passage of time alone, and considerable study and thinking have occured, have changed."

You strive for a redefiniton of the classic. Time, indeed, will be the arbiter: but the agency of judgment is collective, not personal.

"However, I don't think treating Tolkien's work as fiction is terribly useful (or as fantasy) - it's intent is mythological, and, as such to express truths that are the province of mythology."

The issue was treating "a work" as a fulfillment of language. Bring up "myth," then we must consider a whole new dimension of pretension...

dr. mef

Quote:

[Tolkien] unabashedly acknowledges the desire to create [...] an apologetic for R. Catholicism.

Exactly, and now we're reaching the heart of the matter! None of this "getting to the roots of language as the primary theme or purpose" business, please! Lol. I recall that, in one of my undergraduate English classes, the professor asked us for suggestions in choosing our final book to read for the semester. Someone proposed a work by Lewis or Tolkien, to which the professor replied, "Those Christian apologetics give me the creeps". Amen to that!

Quoting a college professor's attitude? Those who can't, teach.

Quote:

Quoting a college professor's attitude? Those who can't, teach.

As I've observed elsewhere, you rather like ad hominem arguments, don't you? Would your statement apply to you, too, then, or to Tolkien? Lol. It's rather amusing to see a person who takes such obvious pride in his doctorate sneering at one of his fellows.

You've chosen a bad example, in this case, regardless, as the professor I mentioned has published at least one novel of which I'm aware. Even if he hadn't, one needn't be a carpenter to recognize a three-legged chair. Neither he or I is criticizing Tolkien on the grounds of objective quality, anyway. We are both simply agreeing with you that The Lord of the Rings is a Roman Catholic apologetic. Where we differ is that you seem to find it worthwhile as literature, whereas he and I (and many others) do not.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 17 Jan 05 | 04:56PM by Kyberean.

Hi Kyberean,

"As I've observed elsewhere, you rather like ad hominem arguments, don't you?"

One of the oldest tricks in the books, especially on the political right. Racism, classism, oppression are indefensible intellectually and morally, so resisters are to be caricatured as inferior and feeble.

"Would your statement apply to you, too, then, or to Tolkien?"
Lol, indeed. But, surely, some animals are more equal than others...

"It's rather amusing to see a person who takes such obvious pride in his doctorate sneering at one of his fellows." Alas, busy hypocrites thrive in even the most sacred groves.

dr. mef

calonlan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Quoting a college professor's attitude? Those
> who can't, teach.
>



I do not mean any harm. However, I simply must say that I do not agree with this. Regardless whether one agrees or disagrees with Kyberean's professor, I have to say that most professors I know, in at least the literature departments, are all very well versed and some are even very accomplished and recognized poets and writers.


I just think that it might be worth either clarifying or reconsidering this statement. Thank you.

~Alycia

PS: Wasn't Tolkien a professor at Oxford?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 17 Jan 05 | 11:42PM by NightHalo.

Tolkien was the quintessential eccentric Oxbridge don: scholar of the abstruse, fictioneer in popular genre.

Like Christ, Confucius, Marx, he is less compromised than his avowed disciples.

I don't like the attitude shown to Dr Farmer above. You can disagree with him (I do myself on some of the things he's said), but childish responses like "Lol" are ad hominem in a way he has never been. NightHalo disagrees like an adult. And what on earth does this mean? "Racism, classism, oppression are indefensible intellectually and morally..." The first two terms are so vague that they're practically useless, and saying oppression is indefensible is a bit like saying crime is illegal. True, but tautological.

Btw, Dr F: I thought your biography of CAS in The Sword Of Zagan was excellent: I've never read anything that made me feel quite as much that I'd met him myself. Thank you.

"like an adult" etc. is not, to coin a phrase, ad hominem???

racism and classism are vague? how convenient for you

Ideology begets ideology.

If anyone would like to entertain a return to substantive argument, the issue would appear to be: how to critique LOTR as a work of fiction.

As the latter, some of us consider it just too "precious."

dr. mef

Ghoti23:

Quote:

but childish responses like "Lol" are ad hominem in a way he has never been.

With all due respect, you really have no idea what you're talking about. Re-read his snide comment about professors, to start. Many other examples of this sort of thing from him abound, if you bother to research them in this forum. One of the most memorably risible is the comparison of Bill Clinton to CAS's Black Abbot. I leave you to find others, if you're so inclined, which I doubt, as your emotions seem already to have made up your mind for you.

mef:

Quote:

As the latter, some of us consider it just too "precious."

Indeed, it is, as well as being ideologically driven. I suppose that that's fine, if one happens to agree with the ideology in question, but fiction as an apology for any sort of rigid belief-system, although it can be good propaganda, is usually poor fiction. Those strictures certainly apply to The Lord of the Rings, so far as I am concerned. I dislike arguing matters of taste, though, as I find it to be pointless. Those who take pleasure in the work are welcome to do so.

This, in a nutshell, is why I bailed out of English post-grad in the late '60's and went into SW engineering.

Good luck to you all, and god bless you...

--Sawfish

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

mef Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "like an adult" etc. is not, to coin a phrase, ad
> hominem???

If you understood what the term meant, you wouldn't have asked the question. I am not criticizing your arguments by criticizing you personally, I am criticizing your behaviour. To do that, I have to criticize you personally, ad hominem. There's no logical fallacy involved.

> racism and classism are vague? how convenient for
> you

Racism is like heresy: unless you know what particular sect the inquisitor belongs to, you don't know what he means by it, except that he means something bad.

mef Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If anyone would like to entertain a return to
> substantive argument, the issue would appear to
> be: how to critique LOTR as a work of fiction.

Why bother? Tolkien is lead to CAS's silver and gold, and like C.S. Lewis he's an example of how professional scholars of literature have rarely contributed anything of value to their subject. You could lose everything they've ever done and literature would barely notice. That isn't true in serious subjects like history or philosophy.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> With all due respect, you really have no idea what
> you're talking about. Re-read his snide comment
> about professors, to start. Many other examples of
> this sort of thing from him abound, if you bother
> to research them in this forum.

With all due respect, whatever Dr Farmer has done, "Lol" is a childish response.

> One of the most
> memorably risible is the comparison of Bill
> Clinton to CAS's Black Abbot.

A good comparison, IMHO. I wonder who Dubya can be compared to? Perhaps King Zotulla.

> I leave you to find
> others, if you're so inclined, which I doubt, as
> your emotions seem already to have made up your
> mind for you.

See my first response above.

Quote:

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> With all due respect, you really have no idea what
> you're talking about. Re-read his snide comment
> about professors, to start. Many other examples of
> this sort of thing from him abound, if you bother
> to research them in this forum.

Ghoti23 wrote: With all due respect, whatever Dr Farmer has done, "Lol" is a childish response.

"Lol" merely expressed my amusement at reading a rather silly reply--silly, in particular, because the professor in question was, in fact, agreeing with calonlan's statement that The Lord of the Rings is a Christian apologetic. Assuming, however, for the sake of argument that I agree with you (which I do not), why single me or mef out for criticism in this regard? Tolkien's work "is shallow to the shallow"; "those who can't, teach": Are you implying that those statements of calonlan's are not childish, disrespectful and ad hominem, far more so than "lol"? I can see why you're trying to shift the debate to what mef and I have written, but let's not forget the manifestly untrue statement that you wrote, above: "lol is more ad hominem than he[canlonan] has ever been". Why don't calonlan's statements raise your ire? Perhaps one standard of comportment and expression applies to calonlan, and another to the rest of us? Calonlan set the tone of the debate, and you're taking others to task for responding to him in the tone that he set? Curious.

Also, to read your post, one would think that "lol" was my only response. It was not. It was a minor element of the matter; the rest was substantive and serious.

Quote:

This, in a nutshell, is why I bailed out of English post-grad in the late '60's and went into SW engineering.

I have a Master's degree in English, but, largely because of disgust with the field at that level, I decided not to on to a Ph.D in the subject, either. Old habits die hard, though, I suppose. ;-)

Kyberean Wrote:

> Tolkien's work
> "is shallow to the shallow"; "those who can't,
> teach": Are you implying that those statements of
> calonlan's are not childish, disrespectful and ad
> hominem, far more so than "lol"?

No, I'm not implying it, I'm stating it explicitly. A child will not say and might not even understand what Dr Farmer said. Or are you claiming "lol" counts as Wildean epigram?

> I can see why
> you're trying to shift the debate to what mef and
> I have written, but let's not forget the
> manifestly untrue statement that you wrote, above:
> "lol is more ad hominem than he has ever been".
> Why don't calonlan's statements raise your ire?

Because I don't feel the need to jeer at someone for disagreeing with me, either by myself or, like you, with a collaborator. NightHalo disagreed too, but she did so politely, as one adult to another.

> Perhaps one standard of comportment and expression
> applies to calonlan, and another to the rest of
> us? Calonlan set the tone of the debate, and
> you're taking others to task for responding to him
> in the tone that he set? Curious.

He did not set the tone at the level of "Lol".

> Also, to read your post, one would think that
> "lol" was my only response. It was not. It was a
> minor element of the matter; the rest was
> substantive and serious.

And pointless, as far as I can see. There are thousands of places to discuss Tolkien, very few to discuss CAS and he's the author we're all interested in. What I'd like to know is whether CAS ever read Tolkien and what he thought if he did.

Quote:

Kyberean Wrote:
> Tolkien's work
> "is shallow to the shallow"; "those who can't,
> teach": Are you implying that those statements of
> calonlan's are not childish, disrespectful and ad
> hominem, far more so than "lol"?

Ghoti23: No, I'm not implying it, I'm stating it explicitly. A child will not say and might not even understand what Dr Farmer said. Or are you claiming "lol" counts as Wildean epigram?

You're also rather selective in your replies; you clearly prefer to avoid answering many of the points I raise. That's quite understandable, though, since I'm sure that, like the person you defend, you have no answers for them, and, like him, all you can do is make empty, haughty assertions in reply.

You're kind of a one-trick pony in this exchange, in fact, aren't you? Your sole forensic tactic consists of clinging with bulldog-like tenacity to three little letters, "lol". How much more clearly do I have to explain that, by the way? "Lol" simply indicated my amusement at Calonlan's reply, because it indicated peevishness on his part, despite the fact that the professor whom I mentioned actually agreed with him that The Lord of the Rings is a Christian apologetic. To construe "lol" as "jeering" is your projection and your misinterpretation. A child wouldn't have written or understood the rest of what I wrote, either, but that inconvenient fact seems to escape you, as well.

Quote:

Why don't calonlan's statements raise your ire?
Ghoti23: Because I don't feel the need to jeer at someone for disagreeing with me, either by myself or, like you, with a collaborator.

First, your reply makes no sense whatsoever. It doesn't come close to answering my question.

Second, I have no "collaborator": Mef's replies are his, and mine are mine.

Third, it would seem, then, that Calonlan's "jeering" is just fine with you, but when others repay him in his own coin, then, oh, what an awful thing! Thank you for confirming what I stated earlier: That you have a double standard. Your position is so manifestly absurd that I am not going to waste any more of my time with you.

Quote:

There are thousands of places to discuss Tolkien, very few to discuss CAS and he's the author we're all interested in. What I'd like to know is whether CAS ever read Tolkien and what he thought if he did.

If you are so concerned with keeping this forum on the subject of CAS, then let's see you prove it by refraining from replying to my post.

Ghoti23:

Final thoughts in summary, since, for some reason, this Forum won't allow me to edit my previous post.

1. You apply your indignation much too selectively for me to take it seriously.

2. Since we are exchanging compliments--your insisting that I'm childish, and all--let me return the favor by suggesting that your insistence on making this affair one of black-or-white is child-like in its simplicity, or even simple-mindedness. The prior context of the debate, the history of my and others' dealings with Calonlan, Calonlan's own previous rude and childish comments to me (referring to one of my earlier remarks as "BS", for instance), even the immediate antecedents of my rejoinder to Calonan--none of these "nuances" matter to you, do they? After all, they might upset your little world of heroes and villains. Well, I've had a bellyful of this, and I leave you to think and feel whatever you like. As I mentioned in my prior post, if you are really so concerned about keeping the CAS Forum on topic, then let's see whether you can refrain from replying to a debate that you ostensibly disdain.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 20 Jan 05 | 12:59PM by Kyberean.

Kyberean Wrote:

> You're also rather selective in your replies; you
> clearly prefer to avoid answering many of the points I raise.

No, I prefer to be concise and avoid logorrhoea. It's not as difficult as you might think.

> That you have a double standard. Your position is so
> manifestly absurd that I am not going to waste any more of my
> time with you.

My standard is that disagreement should be polite, adult, and conducted between individuals. Your lolorrhoea and sneering reference to Dr Farmer as "calonlan" and "'Christian apologists give me the creeps.' Amen to that!" (inter alia) break that standard; nothing Dr Farmer said did.

> If you are so concerned with keeping this forum on the subject
> of CAS, then let's see you prove it by refraining from replying
> to my post.

I'll refrain when I think I've made my point -- which includes the fact that I didn't agree with a lot of what Dr Farmer said.

Kyberean Wrote:

> Final thoughts in summary, since, for some reason,
> this Forum won't allow me to edit my previous
> post.
>
> 1. You apply your indignation much too selectively
> for me to take it seriously.

You take it seriously enough to churn out dozens of words in response.

> 2. Since we are exchanging compliments--your
> insisting that I'm childish, and all--let me
> return the favor by suggesting that your
> insistence on making this affair one of
> black-or-white is child-like in its simplicity, or
> even simple-mindedness.

Another way you're childish is your extreme sensitivity to criticism.

> The prior context of the
> debate, the history of my and others' dealings
> with Calonlan, Calonlan's own previous rude and
> childish comments to me (referring to one of my
> earlier remarks as "BS", for instance),

"BS" is hardly childish, but it is definitely uncouth and if he had used it in this thread I would have said so.

> even the
> immediate antecedents of my rejoinder to
> Calonan--none of these "nuances" matter to you, do
> they? After all, they might upset your little
> world of heroes and villains. Well, I've had a
> bellyful of this, and I leave you to think and
> feel whatever you like. As I mentioned in my prior
> post, if you are really so concerned about keeping
> the CAS Forum on topic, then let's see whether you
> can refrain from replying to a debate that you
> ostensibly disdain.

I ostensibly disdain discussion of Tolkien, not discussion of the conduct of the forum. And please note that I have never regarded Dr Farmer as the "hero": I pointed out at the very beginning that I disagreed with a lot of what he had said.

Btw, could anyone tell me where Bill Clinton is compared to the Black Abbott? I haven't been able to find it yet.

Hmmm..

> "like an adult" etc. is not, to coin a phrase, ad
> hominem???

"If you understood what the term meant, you wouldn't have asked the question."

Poor ignorant me--this is what I get in these decadent times, having actually studied Latin...

"I am not criticizing your arguments by criticizing you personally, I am criticizing your behaviour. To do that, I have to criticize you personally, ad hominem. There's no logical fallacy involved."

Say it three times, then it is necessarily true!

"Racism is like heresy: unless you know what particular sect the inquisitor belongs to, you don't know what he means by it, except that he means something bad."

Inquisitor? Not I--I despise ideological conformity, as well as ignorant "authority"; not to mention, demonizing Others, or torture.

"That isn't true in serious subjects like history or philosophy"
We owe you the profoundest of gratitude, for not only clarifying seriousness, but also Truth!!!

dr. mef

Kyberean wrote:

"Second, I have no "collaborator": Mef's replies are his, and mine are mine."

But, but...
our exalted Anglophonic leaders to a man assure us that conspiracy rules!!!

Quote:

Kyberean wrote:
"Second, I have no "collaborator": Mef's replies are his, and mine are mine."

mef wrote:

But, but...
our exalted Anglophonic leaders to a man assure us that conspiracy rules!!!

Do I dare write "lol" after reading this? ;-)

I admire your jocular approach to this nonsense. I've taken it far too seriously, myself, but that's because I was under the momentary delusion that I was dealing with a reasonable individual (I haven't even read this person's latest replies, nor do I intend to do so. I knew, though, that, despite his avowed eagerness to avoid off-topic discourse, he wouldn't be able to resist responding).

I have, however, learned some interesting things from this portion of the thread:

1. "Lol" never merely expresses amusement at a given person's remarks; it invariably denotes a vicious, childish, sneering attack.

2. It doesn't matter when you explain what you originally intended by using such shorthand. Only the offended reader's (mis)interpretation counts.

3. When you type "lol", that automatically cancels out everything else that you've written. Only the "lol" matters.

4. One standard of politeness in discourse applies to Calonlan, and another applies to everyone else.

dr mef writes:

> Poor ignorant me--this is what I get in these
> decadent times, having actually studied Latin...

But you don't understand non sequitur either, because knowing the literal meaning is no help to someone who fails to understand the logical fallacy, as p.i. you have now done twice.

> behaviour. To do that, I have to criticize you
> personally, ad hominem. There's no logical fallacy
> involved."
>
> Say it three times, then it is necessarily true!

Once was clearly enough.

> Inquisitor? Not I--I despise ideological
> conformity, as well as ignorant "authority"; not
> to mention, demonizing Others, or torture.

An ideological non-conformist who uses the terms "racism", "classism", and "demonizing Others". Luckily, I won't need to translate lusus naturae for you.

> "That isn't true in serious subjects like history
> or philosophy"
> We owe you the profoundest of gratitude, for not
> only clarifying seriousness, but also Truth!!!

Sorry, my mistake. It wasn't childishness at work, just geography. CAS was obviously a lusus nurturae.

Kyberean wrote:

> I admire your jocular approach to this nonsense.

Birds of a feather...

[cut more logorrhoea]

Is that your rattle on the floor?

"Is that your rattle on the floor? "


More gratitude to Ghoti; not only for squarely returning the argument to the literary and aesthetic, and avoiding ad hominem arguments, not to mention hypocrisy; but for his fine rhetorical flair, as well.

Now, what is the Latin for, "A tragedy for those who feel, a comedy for those who think"???

dr. mef

"the jibe of 'childish, less than adult,' though vacuous as argument, and a mere matter of psychological conflict within the projecting subject (adult or adolescent), might in terms of critical discourse be redeployed (de- de-)constructively, constructively, so as to engage the interpretation of the text in question" [Z.S. Louis Derrida-Fische/Gohti]

Decades ago I read LOTR and "Morthylla"; now, only the latter seems relevant and re-readable.

dr. mef

an ideological non-conformist writes:

> More gratitude to Ghoti; not only for squarely
> returning the argument to the literary and
> aesthetic, and avoiding ad hominem arguments, not
> to mention hypocrisy; but for his fine rhetorical
> flair, as well.

Hmmm...

> We owe you the profoundest of gratitude, for not
> only clarifying seriousness, but also Truth!!!

> But, but...
> our exalted Anglophonic leaders to a man assure us
> that conspiracy rules!!!

And how curious that you should overlook a substantive post addressed to you in favour of a minor post not addressed to you. Did you run out of fine rhetorical flair on the 23rd?

> "the jibe of 'childish, less than adult,' though
> vacuous as argument, and a mere matter of
> psychological conflict within the projecting
> subject (adult or adolescent), might in terms of
> critical discourse be redeployed (de-
> de-)constructively, constructively, so as to
> engage the interpretation of the text in question"

An ideological non-conformist who despises 'ignorant "authority"' and quotes the pellucid prose of "Z.S. Louis Derrida-Fische/Gohti" to prove it. Luckily, I still won't need to translate lusus naturae for you. Unluckily, I'm not a proctologist, so I do hope we're done with this thread now.

Quote:

Ghoti23 wrote:
"Is that your rattle on the floor? "


mef wrote: More gratitude to Ghoti; not only for squarely returning the argument to the literary and aesthetic, and avoiding ad hominem arguments, not to mention hypocrisy; but for his fine rhetorical flair, as well.

Thanks for this priceless tidbit. I'd have missed it if you hadn't quoted it, as I've lately been avoiding all subject headings that have anything "fishy" about them. Anyway, as I suspected all along, this fellow is a master of projection; it's plain who is the real child among us. After that outburst, little else needs to be said, except that I suppose this is what Ghoti23 considers to be a "Wildean epigram"? How fortunate we are to have him here to teach us by example the finer points of polite and elevated discourse.

And how curious that you should overlook a substantive post addressed to you in favour of a minor post not addressed to you. Did you run out of fine rhetorical flair on the 23rd?

"substantive"?

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Or, was visiting her proctologist ...and mistaking the issue for substance.

Quote:

"substantive"?

I know; quite funny, isn't it? Of course, Ghoti replies to posts not addressed to him/her/it (lusus naturae? ;-) ), too, and completely fails to address substantive arguments, but none of that matters.

There was certainly nothing "minor" about the post to which you replied, either, as it encapsulated hypocrisy and self-contradiction about as well as one could hope. Now, the little dear is calling for an end to the thread, which is more amusing, still. Since this person seemed so up in arms earlier over our "off-topic" posting, I issued a challenge to refrain from replying further, and thereby put an end to it, but the poor creature's bruised and battered ego simply wouldn't allow it to stop.

Kyberean,

Let's say we now ignore the scaly flaking thing, and truly discuss poetry or fiction...?

mef

Quote:

Let's say we now ignore the scaly flaking thing, and truly discuss poetry or fiction...?

Agreed. I have an idea for a new thread that might interest at least some here, one that is actually--gasp!--directly related to CAS, but it's getting late, and I think that I shall post it later, after searching the forum to see whether it's been covered already.

Praise Thasaidon!

> encapsulated hypocrisy and self-contradiction
> about as well as one could hope.

On the 20th January:

> Second, I have no "collaborator": Mef's replies are his,
> and mine are mine...
> Your position is so manifestly absurd that I am not going
> to waste any more of my time with you...

Later on the 20th:

> Final thoughts in summary...
> You apply your indignation much too selectively for me to take
> it seriously...

On the 22nd:

> I've taken it far too seriously, myself...
> I have, however, learned some interesting things...

On the 24th:

> little else needs to be said...

On the 25th:

> I know; quite funny, isn't it? Of course, Ghoti
> replies to posts not addressed to
> him/her/it (lusus naturae? ;-) ), too,
> and completely fails to address substantive
> arguments, but none of that matters. There was
> certainly nothing "minor" about the post to which
> you replied, either, as it encapsulated hypocrisy
> and self-contradiction about as well as one
> could hope. Now, the little dear is calling for an
> end to the thread, which is more amusing, still.
> Since this person seemed so up in arms earlier over
> our "off-topic" posting, I issued a challenge to
> refrain from replying further, and thereby put an
> end to it, but the poor creature's bruised
> and battered ego simply wouldn't allow it to stop.

------------------------

> I am not going to waste any more of my time with you...
>
> Final thoughts in summary...
>
> I have, however, learned some interesting things...
>
> little else needs to be said...

> You apply your indignation much too selectively for me to take
> it seriously...
>
> I've taken it far too seriously, myself...

> I have no "collaborator"...
>
> him/her/it (lusus naturae? ;-) )...

> poor creature's bruised and battered ego simply
> wouldn't allow it to stop.
>
> encapsulated hypocrisy and self-contradiction
> about as well as one could hope.