A. E. Housman on Editorship

I’ve always felt that Housman was one of the sharpest and most insightful intellects of his day and certainly beyond, a caste of mind not terribly dissimilar to that other danger man, Bernard Williams. In critical mode reading them is akin to handling razor blades. Below is Housman as scathing classicist. After that is Richard Dawkins reading some Housman, which he delivers very well and meaningfully indeed. Though Housman is coopted by the atheist movement (fair enough since AE was one) they gloss over the very subtle threads that inform Housman’s atheism: a deeply tragic, frustrating personal life informed by his traditionalist outlook, a world away from the prevailing table-thumping rationalistic ideological atheism.

His poetry and scholarship were written not by a militant atheist or a gay rights activist like his brother, but by a man who was outraged by failure in the search for truth, and even lapses in accuracy. (“Accuracy is a duty and not a virtue.”)” He treated the moral virtues, including patriotism, the love of beauty, the search for truth, and friendship as realities that imposed lifelong obligations. He lived and wrote as though morality and duty were real, not “hollow fictions.” E. Christan Kopff

The extract below from Selected Prose. Cambridge University Press, 1961, pp. 35-37.

An editor of no judgment, perpetually confronted with a couple of MSS. to choose from, cannot but feel in every fibre of his being that he is a donkey between two bundles of hay. What shall I do now? Leave criticism to the critics, you might say, and betake himself to any honest trade for which he is less unfit. But he prefers a more flattering solution: he confusedly imagines that if one bundle of hay is removed he will cease to be a donkey.

So he removes it. Are the two MSS. equal and do they bewilder him with their rival merit and extract from him at every other moment the novel and distressing effort of using his brains? Then he pretends that they are not equal: he calls one of them ‘the best MS.,’ and to this he resigns the editorial functions which he is himself unable to discharge. He adopts its readings when they are better than its fellow’s, adopts them when they are no better, adopts them when they are worse: only when they are impossible, or rather when he perceives their impossibility, is he dislodged form his refuge and driven by stress of weather to the other port.

This method answers the purpose for which it was devised: it saves lazy editors from working and stupid editors from thinking. But someone has to pay for these luxuries, and that someone is the author; since it must follow, as the night the day, that this method should falsify his text. Suppose, if you will, that the editor’s ‘best MS.’ is in truth the best: his way of using it is nonetheless ridiculous. To believe that wherever a best MS. gives possible readings gives true readings, and that only where it gives impossible readings does it give false readings, is to believe that an incompetent editor is the darling of Providence, which has given its angels charge over him lest at any time his sloth and folly should produce their natural results and incur their appropriate penalty. Chance and the common course of nature will not bring it to pass that the readings of a MS. are right wherever they are possible and impossible wherever they are wrong: that need divine intervention; and when one considers the history of man and the spectacle of the universe I hope one may say without impiety that divine intervention might have been employed better elsewhere. How the world is managed, and why it was created, I cannot tell; but it is no feather-bed for the repose of sluggards.

Apart from its damage to the author, it might perhaps be thought that this way of editing would bring open scorn upon the editors, and that the whole reading public would rise up and tax them, as I tax them now, with ignorance of their trade and dereliction of their duty. But the public is soon disarmed. This planet is largely inhabited by parrots, and it is easy to disguise folly by giving it a fine name.

Alice Cooper as Presidential Candidate

Some may recall this bit of satire from the band 43 years ago — tricky Dicky was of course President. In the UK we had the perennial Screaming Lord Sutch, founder of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party taking the piss. The point is that perhaps it shouldn’t surprise one that that otherwise intelligent people of all political persuasions have such a blindspot regarding politics. They are rightly sceptical of junk “science”, charlatan “preachers”, product marketing hype, and so on and so forth but they leave their critical faculties at the door when it comes to politics. They do, though, seem to seek salvation via the “politics of faith“: that is, the explicit or tacit view that assumes that human power alone can achieve some preferred outcome, one that corresponds with a superficial “branded” view of their “moral” selves. In this sense, politics as a general enterprise, is a most vulgar activity setting aside the deep problems of unforeseen circumstances that few take cognizance of. Now this outlook doesn’t entail or recommend the minimal state or anarchy. It is merely epistemologically (and ultimately) morally prudential in preserving our complex liberal inheritance which is being deeply corroded, most notably by its ostensible “friends”: crypto-totalitarianism masquerading as “liberalism” and their complicitous fundamentalist counterpart, masquerading as “conservativism” both engaging in ritualized point-scoring. Speaking of which, the online epistemic claustrophobia across the political spectrum is now so oppressive that we may have lost all possibility of a veritistic consensus framework — far more insidious than the post-modern relativistic cultural wars of the mid-nineties. What a grim state of affairs! So here’s to food, booze and friendship.

Descending to the depths of Yukio Mishima’s ‘Sea of Fertility’

Damian Flanagan reports (in case you are wondering who Donald Keene is). Also check out Damian’s bio of YM.

“The Sea of Fertility,” the leviathan that Mishima left behind, is arguably both the most important Japanese literary work written in the last 100 years and, by far, the least understood.

Incorporating ideas from noh theater and araya-shiki, the Buddhist concept of an all-encompassing fundamental consciousness, Mishima hit upon an eccentric concept: His protagonist would keep being reincarnated as soon as he or she reached the age of 20.

EPISTEMOLOGY AND RADICALLY EXTENDED COGNITION

This posted under the FirstView section of EPISTEME. Glad to see the implications (or not) between EM and (social) epistemology are now being examined quite regularly — a connection I’ve been making for several years now. Next development — stigmergic epistemology, something my co-author and I have been working on for a while . . .

Hayek’s Modern Family: Classical Liberalism and the Evolution of Social Institutions

Steve Horwitz’ long awaited book.

I look at the ongoing debate over parenting in the United States, asking whether we are raising a nation of wimps rather than free-range kids.

Since about 18% of the population are millennials we are already have a significant nation of wimps or entitled bleating self-induced “autistic” instrumentalist wet noodles. See Keith Parsons @ the Huff Post.

Goodbye to the genius who changed the way we think (and you didn’t know even know it)

John Holland’s obituary by Scott Page (H/T Melanie Mitchell)

John Holland’s complexity studies helped us understand what this complex bacterial colony has in common with your brain, political theory, ants, computers, urban life and more.

Walker Percy Wednesday 48

percycovercroppea

The game was the thing. One became impatient with non-game happenings—a nurse coming in to empty the urinal. Time disposed itself in short tolerable stretches between the bright beads of the games. The score itself, toted up and announced, had the cheerful workaday effect of a small tidy business.

It came to be understood too that one was at the other’s service and that any service could be required. As it sometimes happens between two young men, a kind of daredevil bargain was struck in which the very outrageousness of a request is itself grounds for obeying.

. . .

“Then you have nothing to tell me,” the engineer asked him again.
“That is correct. Nothing.”
“But, sir, you wrote many things in—”
“In the first place I didn’t write them to you. In the second place I no longer believe a word of it. Did you ever read the great philosopher Wittgenstein?”
“No sir,” said the other gloomily.
“After his last work he announced the dictum which summarized his philosophy. He said: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should keep silent. And he did. He stopped teaching and went to live in a hut and said no more.”
“And you believe that?”
“No, I don’t even believe that.”

. . .

“Which is the best course for a man: to live like a Swede, vote for the candidate of your choice, be a good fellow, healthy and generous, do a bit of science as if the world made sense, enjoy a beer and a good piece (not a bad life!). Or: to live as a Christian among Christians in Alabama? Or to die like an honest man?”

 

The Prisoner

Numbered Man – An Analysis of The Prisoner

Number Six: Where am I?

Number Two: In the Village.

Number Six: What do you want?

Number Two: Information.

Number Six: Whose side are you on?

Number Two: That would be telling. We want information… information… in formation.

Number Six: You won’t get it.

Number Two: By hook or by crook, we will.

Number Six: Who are you?

Number Two: The new Number Two.

Number Six: Who is Number One?

Number Two: You are(,) Number Six.

Number Six: I am not a number! I am a free man!

Number Six: I will not make any deals with you. I’ve resigned. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! My life is my own!