Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Popularity of Atlas Shrugged: r ( theory, practice)
I'd say Ayn Rand is the person most responsible for both 'libertarianism' and the 'self-esteem movement' as we know them today, even if she is identified philosophically with the term 'objectivism' (her use of that term, that is). Also, for better or worse she helped popularize 'philosophy' as a topic of non-academics. As I said before, I find her more interesting as a novelist. However, I think her approach to a theory of art is different than what you might get in an academic course on the topic, and not gag-inducing. Don't you think her insights about 'romantic realism' would explain the popularity of 'Avatar' more than some of those efforts we see over on Marxmail? For a taste, you might try (instead of a primary source): http://www.liberalia.com/htm/cm_rand_aesthetics3.htm However, it is this simplicity in her philosophy of aesthetics that gives it an immediate appeal; it is not erudite and specialised because it refers to our common experience. What is truly novel in Rand’s approach, however, is the emphasis she places on an artist’s sense of life. Art is universal in the sense that every human society produces some sort of artistic works. Yet a single work of art is not universally admired, because each one of us has a different sense of life; what I like is not what you like. But when you and I enjoy the same art, it transcends history, culture, religious beliefs, social environments, and the artist's explicit philosophy. This is what I have tried to illustrate with paintings and sculptures that we can all enjoy, and yet which were created by official artists of the two most despicable political regimes of all time. Rand herself ranks Victor Hugo as her favourite novelist, yet Victor Hugo was “irrational” by Randian atheistic and rationalist criteria; Hugo was a believer in God, a believer in the occult, he “channelled” messages from the dead, and, worst of all, he was a social democrat. Likewise Rand mentions Edmond Rostand’s Chantecler as her favourite play. This drama is not in a league with Euripides’s and Shakespeare’s, it is not even a great work of art, but still, as Rand does, I like it. I enjoy Rostand’s sense of life, and I am more moved by Cyrano de Bergerac, L’Aiglon or Chantecler, than by other greater masterpieces, but in which I do not find the values which are mine. Only snobs praise art that does not move them. As the etymology reveals, an author (auctor) is one who “makes something larger”, who magnifies, who ennobles.. Hugo and Rostand both dare to be great. They portray characters who are larger than life. They create heroes. Let’s look for the artists that bring out the hero that is inside each one of us. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Could God die again ?
CeJ jann...@gmail.com wrote: Also interesting is what Engels wrote in 1843: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/10/23.htm The New Moral World No. 21, November 18, 1843 Germany had her Social Reformers as early as the Reformation. Soon after Luther had begun to proclaim church reform and to agitate the people against spiritual authority, the peasantry of Southern and Middle Germany rose in a general insurrection against their temporal lords. Luther always stated his object to be, to return to original Christianity in doctrine and practice; the peasantry took exactly the same standing, and demanded, therefore, not only the ecclesiastical, but also the social practice of primitive Christianity. They conceived a state of villainy and servitude, such as they lived under, to be inconsistent with the doctrines of the Bible; they were oppressed by a set of haughty barons and earls, robbed and treated like their cattle every day, they had no law to protect them, and if they had, they found nobody to enforce it. Such a state contrasted very much with the communities of early Christians and the doctrines of Christ, as laid down in the Bible. Therefore they arose and began a war against their lords, which could only be a war of extermination. Thomas Munzer, a preacher, whom they placed at their head, issued a proclamation, [162] full, of course, of the religious and superstitious nonsense of the age, but containing also among others, principles like these: That according to the Bible, no Christian is entitled to hold any property whatever exclusively for himself; that community of property is the only proper state for a society of Christians; that it is not allowed to any good Christian to have any authority or command over other Christians, nor to hold any office of government or hereditary power, but on the contrary, that, as all men are equal before God, so they ought to be on earth also. These doctrines were nothing but conclusions drawn from the Bible and from Luther’s own writings; but the Reformer was not prepared to go as far as the people did; notwithstanding the courage he displayed against the spiritual authorities, he had not freed himself from the political and social prejudices of his age; he believed as firmly in the right divine of princes and landlords to trample upon the people, as he did in the Bible. ^ CB: Luther didn't have that much of a conflict belieiving in both, as most of the Bible is Ye Olde Testament, which is full of affirmation of the right divine of princes and landlords. Moses was a king of sorts, handing down the Ten Commandments as law, i.e. state backed custom. Most of the Bible is the history of a state power, with standing bodies of armed men, and a repressive apparatus. David was a king. Solomon was a king. The communism is in the New Testament, which is a small section. ^^^ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Matt Turney, RIP
For Martha Graham fans... Mary Hinkson, Matt's close friend and associate, and a famous Graham prima ballarina herself , is my aunt. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/freetodance/biographies/hinkson.html I remember many happy times with Matt. She was very beautiful. Concerning a recent thread on the relation of music and dance, I heard on a recent television show on Aaron Copeland that Copeland didn't name Appalachian Spring. He named the music For Martha. Martha Graham named it Appalachian Spring. Aunt Matt had a primary role in Appalachian Spring. Charles ^ Matt Turney, Longtime Dancer With Martha Graham, Dies at 84 Published: December 29, 2009 Matt Turney, a principal dancer with the Martha Graham Dance Company in the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s, died on Dec. 20 in Poughkeepsie, N.Y. She was 84 and lived in Poughkeepsie. The cause was Parkinson’s disease, said Mary Hinkson, a longtime friend and colleague. Ms. Turney created roles in major Graham works including “Seraphic Dialogue” (in which she danced the Martyr, “Clytemnestra” (Cassandra), “Embattled Garden” (Lilith) and “Part Real — Part Dream.” But the role that perhaps best captured her distinctive quality was the Pioneer Woman in the 1944 Graham classic “Appalachian Spring.” Tall, serene and lyrical, Ms. Turney did not fit the stereotype of the Graham performer. The company’s repertory brimmed with larger-than-life, heroic characters, both earthily anguished and celestially exalted. But Ms. Turney had a gift for stillness, a rare and largely unacknowledged quality in dance, which enabled her to fill the stage with quiet eloquence without moving a muscle, as she did in “Appalachian Spring.” Ms. Turney was a luminous still center in the dramatically charged Graham company, which she joined in 1951 and left in 1972. Looking back on her career, Don McDonagh, the author of a 1973 Graham biography, described Ms. Turney in a recent conversation as “a fluidly statuesque dancer of confident dignity.” But, Mr. McDonagh added, she was also a technically skilled dancer who knew how to use her technique intelligently. “Her strong, subtle technique was subsumed knowingly and efficiently into the service of every role she undertook,” he said. That knowing quality meant that Ms. Turney was able for the most part to separate herself from the all-enveloping mystique of dancing for Graham. Yet the experience was life-shifting and enduring. “Martha’s stage was ritual, completely literal ritual for me ... the first and purest vehicle of meaning,” she wrote in Robert Tracy’s “Goddess: Martha Graham’s Dancers Remember,” published by Limelight Editions in 1997. “The curtain parted and time cracked open ... like a firecracker, showering insight and sudden illuminations. This attenuated ‘nontime’ seemed to stretch back to the beginning and extend into the future. The action was powerful and magic; the telling, ominously clear. The curtain closed and time seemed again with ‘now.’ Try as I might I could not sustain the miraculous sensations and deep revelations, but I was always permanently affected, as though a truth-tipped arrow had found its mark ... that place where mystery, beauty and intelligence are inseparable.” Born in Americus, Ga., in 1925, Ms. Turney grew up in Milwaukee. She trained in modern dance with Nancy Hauser and earned a bachelor’s degree in dance at the University of Wisconsin at Madison before heading to New York City with Ms. Hinkson, a fellow graduate. In New York, Ms. Turney studied at the New Dance Group and joined Ms. Hinkson at the Graham school. She and Ms. Hinkson soon joined the Graham company, the first members of a newly revitalized young troupe and the company’s earliest black dancers. Their first performance was in Graham’s “Canticle for Innocent Comedians.” Ms. Turney also performed briefly with other choreographers, among them Pearl Primus, Donald McKayle, Alvin Ailey and Paul Taylor and was a dancer in the 1961 musical “Milk and Honey.” Before college, she had been invited to join Katherine Dunham’s company, but her parents would not let her. Ms. Turney’s marriage to Bob Teague, a former reporter for WNBC-TV in New York and for The New York Times, ended in divorce. She is survived by a son, Adam Teague of Poughkeepsie, and three grandchildren. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Popularity of Atlas Shrugged: r ( theory, practice)
Thanks. I'll take a look On 1/7/10, CeJ jann...@gmail.com wrote: I'd say Ayn Rand is the person most responsible for both 'libertarianism' and the 'self-esteem movement' as we know them today, even if she is identified philosophically with the term 'objectivism' (her use of that term, that is). Also, for better or worse she helped popularize 'philosophy' as a topic of non-academics. As I said before, I find her more interesting as a novelist. However, I think her approach to a theory of art is different than what you might get in an academic course on the topic, and not gag-inducing. Don't you think her insights about 'romantic realism' would explain the popularity of 'Avatar' more than some of those efforts we see over on Marxmail? For a taste, you might try (instead of a primary source): http://www.liberalia.com/htm/cm_rand_aesthetics3.htm However, it is this simplicity in her philosophy of aesthetics that gives it an immediate appeal; it is not erudite and specialised because it refers to our common experience. What is truly novel in Rand’s approach, however, is the emphasis she places on an artist’s sense of life. Art is universal in the sense that every human society produces some sort of artistic works. Yet a single work of art is not universally admired, because each one of us has a different sense of life; what I like is not what you like. But when you and I enjoy the same art, it transcends history, culture, religious beliefs, social environments, and the artist's explicit philosophy. This is what I have tried to illustrate with paintings and sculptures that we can all enjoy, and yet which were created by official artists of the two most despicable political regimes of all time. Rand herself ranks Victor Hugo as her favourite novelist, yet Victor Hugo was “irrational” by Randian atheistic and rationalist criteria; Hugo was a believer in God, a believer in the occult, he “channelled” messages from the dead, and, worst of all, he was a social democrat. Likewise Rand mentions Edmond Rostand’s Chantecler as her favourite play. This drama is not in a league with Euripides’s and Shakespeare’s, it is not even a great work of art, but still, as Rand does, I like it. I enjoy Rostand’s sense of life, and I am more moved by Cyrano de Bergerac, L’Aiglon or Chantecler, than by other greater masterpieces, but in which I do not find the values which are mine. Only snobs praise art that does not move them. As the etymology reveals, an author (auctor) is one who “makes something larger”, who magnifies, who ennobles.. Hugo and Rostand both dare to be great. They portray characters who are larger than life. They create heroes. Let’s look for the artists that bring out the hero that is inside each one of us. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Popularity of Atlas Shrugged: r ( theory, practice)
In her epistemology, Rand draws our attention to the fact that we humans obtain our information about reality through a process of integration. We integrate from a lower level of awareness to a higher one: from senses into percepts and from percepts into concepts. The very first information we glean about our world comes to us through our senses: an object is either hot or cold, light or dark, big or small. At this level, we function not unlike animals. But where animals can go no further, humans can. Humans can identify sensory data as objects and can put a name on them, i.e., humans can form percepts (these green and tall objects out there are trees, and “tree” is a percept), and then we can progress by integrating two or more single isolated percepts into a concept (these trees form a forest). Even if I cannot see the forest (for instance, it may extend for miles and I am not in a helicopter), I still know by process of abstraction that all these trees form something that I, and all of us, can identify as a forest. ^^ CB: Not to be whatever, but here the author clearly articulates an individualist or positivist frame for the epistemology. The critical aspect of humans obtaining information is the social or cultural frame structuring it. Humans don't individually as babies or children or adults start observing and collecting sense data, and form percepts and concepts on their own. This whole process is intensely mediated by culture, language and other people. This individualist error is rife in bourgeois philosophy. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Popularity of Atlas Shrugged: r ( theory, practice)
I have just stated that human cognition begins with the ability to perceive entities directly through our senses, mostly by touch and sight. ^ CB: This is wrong. _Human_ cognitiion begins with language and communication with other humans, not with perceiving through the senses, except perceiving the language and activities of other humans through the senses. ^^^ However, to quote Rand “All the arts are conceptual in essence, all are products of, and addressed to, the conceptual level of man’s consciousness.” This is a fundamental point because we have here Rand’s repudiation of all forms of abstract paintings. Abstract painting and sculpture do not attempt to deal with the viewer above the level of the senses, i.e., the animal level. ^ CB: This is an interesting point. I hadn't thought of this in this way before, being a doodle artist myself, drawing lots of abstract pictures for 35 years. Interestingly, though, what happens is that, people see concrete things in the abstract drawings, so humans automatically give meaning to the abstract drawings, as with a sort of Rohrschach test. And ironically, given this is a libertarian-individualist critique, this creates something of an individual and unique meaning for each observer. Also, it senuous, naturally, to appeal to the animal level of humans' senses. So, people derive natural pleasure from abstract art, as well as imputing their own meaning. ^ In her essay Art Cognition, Rand states: Whereas the essence of art is integration, “the keynote and goal of modern art is nothing less than the disintegration of man’s conceptual faculty”. She goes on to say “To reduce man’s consciousness to the level of senses, with no capacity to integrate them is the intention behind the reducing of painting to smears and of sculpture to slabs.” Abstract art, therefore, is a war against reason. ^ CB: No, it tends to draw out each individual's own reason, which is originally derived _socially_, but takes its own, unique fingerprints of reason for each individual. Ironically, the libertarians, reputed champions of individualism, miss this highly individualistic dimension of abstract art. Abstract art can draw out (pun intended) what is on each indivdual's mind. The observer makes her own percepts out of the drawing, based on her unique conceptual field. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Popularity of Atlas Shrugged: r ( theory, practice)
When I saw the painting above by the Belgian artist René Magritte at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, there was a young American couple trying to figure out the meaning of the banner in French (“Ceci n’est pas une pipe”). So I confirmed to them that, yes, it means “This is not a pipe.” “But it is a pipe, right?” the young lady asked. By chance, I had a matchbox from my hotel in my pocket, so I handed it to her and told her to go ahead and light the pipe. ^ CB: Wait until we get to Escher (smile) ^ In a way, ideas are unreal. When we attempt to realise our ideas, what we really do is derealise them. They cease to be ideas, and instead become actions, events, objects, enterprises, paintings, etc. A traditional portrait painter claims to be able to capture a real person on canvas. In truth, what a portraitist does is to set down on his canvas a schematic selection -- decided arbitrarily by his mind -- of the infinite traits that make up a living person. This is precisely Rand’s definition of art: “A selective recreation of reality.” ^ CB: The realistic (non-abstract) artist doesn't decide arbitrarily by his mind what to put on his canvas. He skillfully and rationally abstracts aspects that cause other minds to see an _imitation_ of what the drawing or painting or sculpture seeks to _represent_. It is a recreation or imitation or representation of reality based on skillful selection or _abstraction_ of features of reality that tend to cause other humans to see and sense the reality in the art object. ^^^ I do not know whether the two sisters painted here by Chasseriau were as boring in real life as they look in this painting. We can only hope for their sake that Chasseriau’s selective recreation of their reality captured only their dull moments. When I saw the painting above by the Belgian artist René Magritte at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, there was a young American couple trying to figure out the meaning of the banner in French (“Ceci n’est pas une pipe”). So I confirmed to them that, yes, it means “This is not a pipe.” “But it is a pipe, right?” the young lady asked. By chance, I had a matchbox from my hotel in my pocket, so I handed it to her and told her to go ahead and light the pipe. In a way, ideas are unreal. When we attempt to realise our ideas, what we really do is derealise them. They cease to be ideas, and instead become actions, events, objects, enterprises, paintings, etc. A traditional portrait painter claims to be able to capture a real person on canvas. In truth, what a portraitist does is to set down on his canvas a schematic selection -- decided arbitrarily by his mind -- of the infinite traits that make up a living person. This is precisely Rand’s definition of art: “A selective recreation of reality.” I do not know whether the two sisters painted here by Chasseriau were as boring in real life as they look in this painting. We can only hope for their sake that Chasseriau’s selective recreation of their reality captured only their dull moments. ^ CB: I don't know.The two sisters look kind of cute to me. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder (smile) ( just like meaning-beauty in abstract art) ^^^ Of course, this is the problem with art; it is only selective reality, it is not reality. There is always a gap which the artist can never hope to bridge. Modern artists decided to throw in the towel altogether. Why bother to attempt to paint the real person when this always meets with little success? If we decided instead to paint our own idea of the person, the portrait would become the truth, and failure would no longer be inevitable. Expressionism, cubism, abstract art; these artistic styles are based on this inversion of the traditional relationship between art and reality, as Rand advocates it. The painter ceases to paint objects, and instead paints ideas. CB: Yeah. This is interesting. I remember claiming as a joke that an abstract doodle I had done was a picture of the number 376 (smile). What does a picture of a number look like ? ^ Rand wrote her four essays on art in the 1960s. So what she refers to as “modern art” is the art of, say, the previous 30 years; art produced between 1930 and 1960. In painting and sculpture, the big names of this period were Nolde, Kandinsky, Dali, Paul Klee, and Max Ernst, among others. The common characteristic of all these artists is a real loathing for living forms,or at least the forms of living beings. ^^^ CB: There's another step here to living beings, not just reality. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Popularity of Atlas Shrugged: r ( theory, practice)
Throughout the history of art, there have been many examples of fads against depicting images. The iconoclasts in Oriental Christianity and the Moslem law against representation of human beings are just two examples. Even in prehistoric times, we observe that the living form was often abandoned, with artists stylising a serpent into a meander, the sun into a swastika, etc. Modern art is obviously going through one of these iconoclastic surges. But why the current hatred of human forms? The trend may be changing now, but throughout the period between 1920 and 1970, there was a definite desire of artists to dehumanise art. Modern artists were motivated by an aversion to the traditional interpretation of realities, i.e. to the tradition handed down to us by the Greeks through the Renaissance, and to the classical cult of the beauty of the human body. ^ CB: One point this analyst hasn't mentioned in the development of modern abstract art, is the invention of the camera and photography, such that the skill of drawing and painting very realistic representations, including of the human body, is less than what can be done by a camera in an instant. Drawing realistically is usurped by snapping a picture. The average person can get a perfect picture of anybody and anything, in color, with a camera they can buy at the drugstore. Artists turned to other tasks rather than mastering something that will never equal the camera. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Popularity of Atlas Shrugged: r ( theory, practice)
The young Aniska, whose portrait we see now, is a member of the Communist Young Pioneers organisation; you can tell by the red scarf she wears around her neck. What is moving in this picture is that the painter, David Sterenberg, has chosen to show the girl in the uniform of a collective organisation, while at the same time conveying a feeling of absolute loneliness ^^^ CB: I don't know , it could be moving because it shows significant individuality ( not loneliness) in the context of collectivity. Naturally, a libertarian sees loneliness instead of his beloved individuality in a depiction of Soviet life. Even non-abstract art is understood based on the mind of the observer. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Evolutionary Surprise: Eight Percent Of Human Genetic Material Comes From A Virus
Wow ! About eight percent of human genetic material comes from a virus and not from our ancestors, according to researchers in Japan and the U.S. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107103621.htm ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Popularity of Atlas Shrugged: r ( theory, practice)
This is what I had written about Rand over on LBO-Talk: -- Chris Sciabarra, some years ago, wrote an interesting book on Ayn Rand, titled, *Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical*, which seeks to trace out the Russian intellectual and cultural roots of Rand's thought. He sees much of her thinking as rooted in the culture of Russia's Silver Age, which followed the failed revolution of 1905. During that period, Nietzsche became very popular among Russian intellectuals and artists. Indeed, even many of the Russian Marxists, including Bolshevik theorists like Bogdanov and Lunacharsky caught the Nietzschean bug. The young Ayn Rand (or rather the young Alissa Rosenbaum) became very much taken with Nietzsche. In fact what she did later on was to marry the romantic individualism of Nietzsche with the economic individualism of capitalist apologists. I think to understand her as a writer, we must keep in mind that she toiled for years on the fringes of Hollywood's film industry. She started off working in menial jobs and as an occasional extra on films. She later became script doctor and eventually, a screen writer. She was, as a Russian, taken with the idea of using the novel as a medium for expressing complex philosophical or political ideas. She was a great admirer of Dostoyevsky. Either because she lacked the ability or perhaps because she had a good grasp of the cultural realities of American society, she turned to what was essentially pulp fiction as a means for conveying her philosophical and political outlook to the general public in the US. Jim Farmelant On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 20:58:09 +0900 CeJ jann...@gmail.com writes: I'd say Ayn Rand is the person most responsible for both 'libertarianism' and the 'self-esteem movement' as we know them today, even if she is identified philosophically with the term 'objectivism' (her use of that term, that is). Also, for better or worse she helped popularize 'philosophy' as a topic of non-academics. As I said before, I find her more interesting as a novelist. However, I think her approach to a theory of art is different than what you might get in an academic course on the topic, and not gag-inducing. Don't you think her insights about 'romantic realism' would explain the popularity of 'Avatar' more than some of those efforts we see over on Marxmail? For a taste, you might try (instead of a primary source): http://www.liberalia.com/htm/cm_rand_aesthetics3.htm However, it is this simplicity in her philosophy of aesthetics that gives it an immediate appeal; it is not erudite and specialised because it refers to our common experience. What is truly novel in Rands approach, however, is the emphasis she places on an artists sense of life. Art is universal in the sense that every human society produces some sort of artistic works. Yet a single work of art is not universally admired, because each one of us has a different sense of life; what I like is not what you like. But when you and I enjoy the same art, it transcends history, culture, religious beliefs, social environments, and the artist's explicit philosophy. This is what I have tried to illustrate with paintings and sculptures that we can all enjoy, and yet which were created by official artists of the two most despicable political regimes of all time. Rand herself ranks Victor Hugo as her favourite novelist, yet Victor Hugo was irrational by Randian atheistic and rationalist criteria; Hugo was a believer in God, a believer in the occult, he channelled messages from the dead, and, worst of all, he was a social democrat. Likewise Rand mentions Edmond Rostands Chantecler as her favourite play. This drama is not in a league with Euripidess and Shakespeares, it is not even a great work of art, but still, as Rand does, I like it. I enjoy Rostands sense of life, and I am more moved by Cyrano de Bergerac, LAiglon or Chantecler, than by other greater masterpieces, but in which I do not find the values which are mine. Only snobs praise art that does not move them. As the etymology reveals, an author (auctor) is one who makes something larger, who magnifies, who ennobles.. Hugo and Rostand both dare to be great. They portray characters who are larger than life. They create heroes. Lets look for the artists that bring out the hero that is inside each one of us. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis Cash Advance Need cash? Click to get a cash advance. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=G8WxFhFORIbz_Pe39PL3zAAAJ1AP8ttsZd_TbiVxkZxsC3mBAAYAAADNAAADdgA=
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Could God die again ?
^ CB: Luther didn't have that much of a conflict belieiving in both, as most of the Bible is Ye Olde Testament, which is full of affirmation of the right divine of princes and landlords. Moses was a king of sorts, handing down the Ten Commandments as law, i.e. state backed custom. Most of the Bible is the history of a state power, with standing bodies of armed men, and a repressive apparatus. David was a king. Solomon was a king. The communism is in the New Testament, which is a small section. I think my posts show that the 'communism' parts are not really just the NT nor even early Christians (or early Christian Jews). The term 'Essenes', as an influential branch of Pharisee Judaism (for an analogy think of the later Sufi relative to both Sunni and Shia Islam). That is, what were in effect 'Christian' and/or 'Jewish' Essenes. Talmudic Rabbinical Judaism is actually a development later than early Christianity, but we can see it clearly springs from Pharisee Judaism, post-second temple, with the important 'learning and dissemination centers', not coincidentally, originally located where Shia Islam's still are. The OT material is a real mix and would take far more knowledge than I have of it to make much sense here in such a limited space. However, I think more recent analysis is that it is largely revived, revised, and combined myths imposed on and justifying a sort of historic, royal rule that is no where near as ancient as popular belief would have it. Its rule was not that much before the early Christian period and was quickly overwhelmed by and circumscribed by the Persian and Roman realms (with a brief Greco-Macedonian/Alexander period in there somewhere). Materially it seems to have emerged from of a much larger, dominant Canaanite culture (as did the Phoenicians, who got all over the Mediterranean in colonies rivalling the Greeks and Romans), and as for archaelogical remnants in what is now 'Israel', it seems to be confused with Samaritan culture. The real issue with the Christian bible is all that later handiwork done to make the OT and NT appear to be a 'seamless' text. Rabbincal Talmudic Judaism largely develops as a rejection of Christian Judaism--they obviously took great pains to try and purge Christian influences out of their own developing canon, which is an early middle age codification of 'oral law'. It is also a continuation post-temple of schisms along some older understanding of Judaism vs. Samaritanism. Little wonder perhaps that the early Christians made such great conversions among the Judeo-Samaritans, a people that post-mos know next to nothing about. A couple more points. When early Islam identified an Abrahamic tradition (a term now largely adopted by Christians and Jews), it was identifying a tradition that was much more diverse than what we know today (as we anachronistically and what we, with great bias, impose largely as European Christian and European Jewish ideas onto the insight). One clear dichotomy was between monotheists and polytheists. And that is a distinction that cuts across a lot of cultures and religions in the Levant, Babylonia, the ME and W. Asia. That would have included proselytising Arab Jews, monotheist Arab tribesman (who may have been practicing an isolated form of 'Judaism'), etc. If Abraham could be identified as an historic personage rather than just a legendary figure, one is hard-pressed to make him a 'Jew' of any modern or even late classical sort. He appears to have come from an area where Aramaic (a W. Semitic language) and Kurdish (an Indo-European language, close to Persian, Pashtun) were spoken. One highly speculative account says the original 'Jews' were mixed tribal people migrating into what would later be called 'Judea'--mostly outcasts-- who were predominantly Indo-Europeans (linguistically speaking) and who only later assimilated to dominant Aramaic/Canaanite. How ironic for all the racists caught up in ideas about 'Semitic' being someting to do with race, including the Nazis and the Zionists. The best known of the suppressed gospels of Jesus by the way was written in Aramaic, most likely for Aramaic-speaking Jews who considered themselves 'Jewish Christians'. One reason it ultimately might have been suppressed was its Christology not meshing with the ones that did get to remain canon (although none really explicitly put forth a 'trinitarian' view of Christ, 3/4 do tend to play up his 'divinity'). Rabbinical Judaism largely rejects Jesus's role as messiah, so they don't even have to touch on his divinity or status as god. Which brings me back to the original point. Attempts to revive a sort of proto-communism because it was found in the early Christian religions have strong analogies in Judaism and Islam as well as other 'Abrahamic' religions. But I think one strong limitation has always been it is a communism that rejects the mainstream of humanity, the larger society that plays material host to it. CJ
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Could God die again ?
THESE were not Christians. I'm not sure we would call them communists
today but the source is a late 19th century, early 20th century work:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=Eartid=478
Their Communism.(comp. B. M. ii. 11).
No one possesses a house absolutely his own, one which does not at
the same time belong to all; for in addition to living together in
companies [ḥaburot] their houses are open also to their adherents
coming from other quarters [comp. Aboti. 5]. They have one storehouse
for all, and the same diet; their garments belong to all in common,
and their meals are taken in common. . . . Whatever they receive for
their wages after having worked the whole day they do not keep as
their own, but bring into the common treasury for the use of all; nor
do they neglect the sick who are unable to contribute their share, as
they have in their treasury ample means to offer relief to those in
need. [One of the two Ḥasidean and rabbinical terms for renouncing all
claim to one's property in order to deliver it over to common use is
hefker (declaring a thing ownerless; comp. Sanh. 49a); Joab, as the
type of an Essene, made his house like the wilderness—that is,
ownerless and free from the very possibility of tempting men to theft
and sexual sin—and he supported the poor of the city with the most
delicate food. Similarly, King Saul declared his whole property free
for use in warfare (Yalḳ.,Sam. i. 138). The other term is heḳdesh
nekasim (consecrating one's goods; comp. 'Ar. vi. ; Pes. 57: The
owners of the mulberry-trees consecrated them to God; Ta'an. 24a:
Eliezer of Beeroth consecrated to charity the money intended for his
daughter's dowry, saying to his daughter, 'Thou shalt have no more
claim upon it than any of the poor in Israel.' Jose ben Joezer,
because he had an unworthy son, consecrated his goods to God (B. B.
133b). Formerly men used to take all they had and give it to the poor
(Luke xviii. 22); in Usha the rabbis decreed that no one should give
away more than the fifth part of his property ('Ar. 28a; Tosef., 'Ar.
iv. 23; Ket. 50a).] They pay respect and honor to, and bestow care
upon, their elders, acting toward them as children act toward their
parents, and supporting them unstintingly by their handiwork and in
other ways
Not even the most cruel tyrants, continues Philo, possibly with
reference to King Herod, have ever been able, to bring any charge
against these holy Essenes, but all have been compelled to regard them
as truly free men. In Philo's larger work on the Jews, of which only
fragments have been preserved in Eusebius' Præparatio Evangelica
(viii.), the following description of the Essenes is given (ch. xi.):
Read more:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=Eartid=478#1297#ixzz0bzYDE8DA
___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
