Apologies for my late 2003 spasmic efforts. I sent the following last
night, thinking it was going to the list, and guess what? Yes, just to
Peter. Anyhow, just for the record:
At 02:27 PM 12/30/2003 -0800, Peter Montgomery wrote:
>Certainly of interest to me, Ken. Thanks.
>There are further relevant pieces of interest in
>McLuhan's LETTERS. Some of his anti-US attitude
Peter and all,
I don't think he had an anti-US attitude, at least not as evidenced in
the letter to Pound. What he was complaining about, many others did (and
do), also, including a good many Americans. Walker Percy called it
dyadic vs. triadic thinking (In _Signposts in a Strange Land_, a collection of
his essays, he calls it in one essay "A Fateful Rift: The San Andreas Fault
in the Modern
Mind"). Royce (not using percept as MM did) called it a percept/concept
orientation to thinking as opposed to interpretation (an especially
loaded term now, but which Royce was at some pains to define). For R. G.
Collingwood, the kind of thinking the artist brought to his art (what I
believe McLuhan wanted to promote) was "three-cornered thinking." The
list could grow almost exponentially.
I thought Rick might be interested not in the comments on the U.S.,
which to be honest are so old hat I didn't hardly notice them, but in
McLuhan's attempt to locate the ideogram in a Western prescription.
P.S. Probably need a disclaimer here on the importance of the old hat,
but I really wasn't trying, from the git-go, to blow the lid off of