Print

Print


A great many ideas may be perceptive about what is wrong but not at all
about solutions. It is not about being "correct"; neither "perceptive" nor
"prescient" entails "correct."

I would not even think of listing what was "not perceptive" out of context.
For example, as I noted, he said in a letter "I'm all for Empire." That is
worked out much later in his admiration for the Roman Empire in "Virgil and
the Christian World." I really do not agree that the solution to the
problems of modern capitalism (many of which Sanders aptly identifies
[which does not mean his solutions are "correct") would be solved by
Eliot's "Christian Society" or his "Culture," let alone the Roman Empire
at its least violent, even if it were possible to create: his vision is
exclusionary and hierarchical.

I was not at all conflating "Notes toward the Definition of Culture" with
"The Idea of a Christian Society." Believe it or not I have read both many
times. I said "as in"; that does not mash anything or confuse either. In
the former he spent a great deal of time and space on the relation of what
he imagines to be the few "great" cultures and others he sees as "satellite
cultures"* as in* England and Scotland or Wales. That is what I had in mind
in contrast to "Empire," and I assume anyone who has read both at all
recently will see the relevance.

If you do not see how calling Christianity "the only full revelation" and
saying “The World is trying the experiment of attempting to form a
civilized but non-Christian mentality. The experiment will fail" divides us
and is now a disturbing political problem, I can't help you. (See Donald
Trump and the response of Suzanne Barakat, the sister of a Muslim student
killed alongside his wife and sister-in-law last year in an attack in North
Carolina--just being mutually helpful.)

It would be interesting if, just once, we could have a discussion in which
you did not feel the need to write as if I need correction and information
from your apparently greater knowledge and understanding. It is a bit
silly, not at all called for, and very tiresome.
Nancy

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> On 2/21/2016 2:24 PM, Nancy Gish wrote:
>
>> I agree with Ken (interesting) that there is a major issue in all these
>> about how they could be implemented. And I don't think them quirky either.
>> As critiques, they are also sometimes perceptive and even prescient.
>>
>> I would not wish to see them either implemented or widely accepted:
>>
>
>      I thought they were more than "sometimes perceptive." And as
> perceptions or observations, if they are accurate, how could you not want
> to see them more widely accepted? Either they are correct or they are not.
> Perhaps it would help if you listed the ones (apparently the majority?)
> that weren't perceptive?
>
> Eliot's apparent solution, at least in some cases, is the creation of a
>> uniform society (as in "Notes toward the Definition of Society" or empire
>> (as in "Virgil and the Christian World").
>>
>
>   Eliot was careful to call it "Notes" not "The Solution." And by the way,
> it was Notes Toward the Definition of Culture. The other book which seems
> mashed together in your title was The Idea of a Christian Society. I think
> he was using the word "idea" to indicate an unrealizable goal. But clearly
> he was trying to sound an alarm that forgetting and sloughing off the roots
> of culture was not a good thing for the future of that culture. Yancey's
> observation that EU members would smile at that notion is perhaps just a
> bit premature; there's still time for that bulleted Eliot point to move
> into the prescient column.
>
> I'm really not sure what you mean about dividing. And my sense is that
> Eliot might come back to your position and say it is assumed from the
> temporal side only and offers no counterbalancing idea. But it is only a
> sense, since you do not define it. Throughout his points in the Yancey
> list, he seems fairly obviously to be attempting to strike a balance and
> not to be going to any extreme but to point out the dangers of doing so. I
> think he is doing it not to be diplomatic, but to be accurate. Which is one
> of the things I value in his thinking.
>
> Ken A
>