A rat rathere empty truism, but what, as they used to say in the '50s,
does it have to do with the pricxe of eggs in Todkyo.

Can't type much; just had surgery on my left thumb for trigger thumb;
hand still pretty much without feeling.
Carrol

Peter Montgomery wrote:
> 
> Everyone has his or her agendas.
> 
> P.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carrol Cox" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 6:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Mr. Eugenides
> 
> > "Civiilization" in any of the contexts we have used it in here is a
> > polemical term, and it can't be pinned down so neatly. It contains quite
> > a few of what
> > Empson called "equations" in his complex words. Two or more senses of a
> > word which in a given  context are identified. Wonderful example from
> > Pope,
> >
> > Some to whom wit has been profuse,
> > Want as much more to turn it to its use.
> >
> > This is not merely ambiguity (intended or unintended) but (in the
> > example) claims that "seeing resemblances"  must somehow incorporate
> > _within_ itself the 'opposite' of seeing differences. And in the
> > background is "A Great  Wit," i.e. "wit" as "A profound thinker (e.g.,
> > Aristotle) coloring the equation of wit & judgtment (two cliches from
> > 17th-c criticism). And that's only a beginning.
> >
> > Well, "civilized" is usually packed with unintended equations. "You
> > uncivilized brute" someone says in conversation, utterly innocent of any
> > knowledge of the Latin maning  of civis -- but even here that is lurking
> > in the background. Hence it's not quite  correct to simply define
> > "civillliWs" hwew as a synonysm for "civil," "polite," and "uncivilized"
> > as merely "crude" or rude. (And check the history of _rude_!)
> >
> > And we are slipping back and forth here between two sets of users of
> > civilized: (1) a set of one: T.S. Eliot, who does not use it in the text
> > under consideration and (2) readrs of Eliot, of shom a certain minimal
> > sophistication is expected (dand check the histoyr of _that_ term).
> > "Tribal" as an antonym simply will not do. It _never_ was related to
> > that but contrasted to non-urban, as in peasant. Civilization was simply
> > urban. But it has long since ceased to carry that simple content, and
> > probably didn't from the beginning: cf. pagan; heathen.
> >
> > So we need to either drop the term or start over again with more care.
> > Nancy's use is probably the place to start, but as much as she packs
> > into her discussion of Conrad, it's not a complete unpacking of all that
> > several millenia of usage have packed into "civilization" and
> > "civiliczed."
> >
> > Carrol
> >
> > Peter Montgomery wrote:
> > >
> > > I think we need to sort out terms here.
> > >
> > > The antonym of civilised is not savage, but tribal.
> > > Civilisations tend to be literate. Tribes tend to be auditory.
> > > Cf Eric Havelock's Preface to Plato.
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_A._Havelock#Preface_to_Plato
> > >
> > > Both can be, but are not necessarily savage or civil.
> > > The Iroquois were very savage. The Hurons were very civil.
> > > Even highly developed civilsations and tribes can be savage
> > > (cf Nazis and Mayans).
> > >
> > > Civilsations, having evolved from tribal societies tend to have
> > > remnant values of tribal socities which can create conflict.
> > > Kurtz was attempting to revert to type, which was an impossible thing to
> do.
> > > As a product of civilsation he was too self-aware of his individuality,
> > > a characteristic not common in tribes.
> > >
> > > Pre-Platonic culture in Greece, ie the Hellenes were tribal
> > > The Iliad and Odessey are tribal productions of an aural culture.
> > > Their word for a person who dissociated from the group to become
> > > an individual was 'idiotae'. Socrates was one such.
> > >
> > > P.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "DIana Manister" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 11:18 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Mr. Eugenides
> > >
> > > > Not necessarily Peter,
> > > >
> > > > A civilized person could morph into a sociopathic killer. Jack the
> > > > Ripper or any number of decivilized monsters who are not savages.
> > > >
> > > > So-called Savages have their own moral codes and taboos, often very
> > > > strictly observed.
> > > >
> > > > Diana
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPod
> > > >
> > > > On May 25, 2010, at 7:28 AM, Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > To be de-civilised is not to be uncivilised.
> > > > > To be de-civilised is not to be a savage.
> > > > > It is to have no identity at all. A hollow man.
> > > > > P.
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Carrol Cox" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 6:22 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Mr. Eugenides
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> Peter Montgomery wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Eliot was a big fan of THE HEART OF DARKNESS.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Is Kurtz de-civilised?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> No! To be civilized is to be aware of oneself as related to The
> City.
> > > > >> Kurtz's life would be unintelligible within a paleolithic or even
> > > > >> neolithic culture. And while K's attitude towards the "natives"
> > > > >> invokes
> > > > >> the Eurocentric use of "savage," his attitude towareds hmself, let
> > > > >> alone
> > > > >> the attitude of (a) the fictional narrator and (b) the story as a
> > > > >> whole
> > > > >> is biguous. Tos label Kurtz as "uncivilzied" is to justify Europe:
> > > > >> It is
> > > > >> not Europe that is committing genocide n the Congo but those
> > > > >> savages who
> > > > >> have infected Kurtz with their savagery which then has rebounded on
> > > > >> them.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Now it may be that Eliot (the man) or Eliot (the poet of TWL)
> himself
> > > > >> thought in these terms, of Kurtz or the woman in the narrow canoe
> as
> > > > >> "decivilzied." Assuming that would add quite an interesting edge to
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> poem but it would make Eliot the man worthy of the greatest
> contempt.
> > > > >> (Ditto re Conrad.)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "The horror. The Horror" Kurtz muttrs -- and perhaps that horror is
> > > > >> analyzed in the history of such words as "pagan," "civilization,"
> > > > >> "savage," "urbane," and other terms in which is embodied the
> > > > >> valorization of The City (- Europe in the 196h c.) and "The
> > > > >> Country" (=
> > > > >> the rest of the world in the 19th-c). (My expositon here is jumbled
> > > > >> since I'm explorginga what for me is new angle from which to look
> > > > >> at the
> > > > >> consciousness arising from the savage (!) rampage of Europe across
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> world in the last 3 centuriesd. It is too bad Empson did not
> > > > >> include a
> > > > >> chapter on "savage" in his _Structure of *Complex Words_, for quite
> a
> > > > >> bit of (terrifying) history is packed into the 'equations' as
> Empson
> > > > >> called them which structure this term.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Carrying this (even in its rough state here) back to TWL, we may
> > > > >> see a
> > > > >> sort of (unintended) savage (!) irony in that phrase which ends the
> > > > >> poem.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'll stop here for now.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Carrol
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Mr. Civilisation, he dead!
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> P.
> > > > >>> ----- Original Message -----
> > > > >>> From: "Carrol Cox" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > >>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > >>> Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 7:19 AM
> > > > >>> Subject: Re: Mr. Eugenides
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Diana Manister wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Peter,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Yes dehumanized. De-civilized too, if you will,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> "decivilized" (which is also not Eliot's word) is an even more
> > > > >>>> inappropriate metaphor than dehumanized. The behavior of the
> > > > >>>> clerk is
> > > > >>>> only possible within civilization! For one thing, even in a
> > > > >>>> pre-capitalist class societies she would not have been living
> > > > >>>> alone or
> > > > >>>> preparing her own meal. Those tins involved international
> commerce.
> > > > >>>> Moreover, the entire episode presupposes the atomized social
> > > > >>>> relations
> > > > >>>> which appeared embryonically in the 175th-c (and Milton with
> > > > >>>> amazing
> > > > >>>> prescience grasped) and only fully (and only in England & the
> > > > >>>> U.S.) in
> > > > >>>> the 19th-c. They were only beginning to develop in France &
> Germany
> > > > > (and
> > > > >>>> this enters into the causes of WW1).
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> So whatever the young man and woman are or are not, they are
> highly
> > > > >>>> civilized -- and surely Eliot had enough of an historical sense
> and
> > > > > was
> > > > >>>> precise enough in his language (even the silent language of
> thought
> > > > > and
> > > > >>>> intention) that he would never have seen these characters as
> > > > >>>> de-ciivilized. These vague, sloppy categories introduced by
> readers
> > > > >>>> rather than the poem trivialize the whole poem.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Carrolk
> > > > >