I have been reading some heavy tome-age lately and I needed a break so I’ve been digging out some old paperback science fiction favorites, in this case the work of Roger Zelazny, who wrote some great books back in the 60s. One of his conceits was to take ideas and concepts from ancient mythology and project them into the future to great effect. The book I’m currently rereading, ** you do not have permission to see this link **, one of his best, posits a race of future extraterrestrials who dominate a planet by taking on the forms of the Hindu deities. One of their number who wishes to foster a rebellion against their oppression takes the form of, who else? The Buddha! Great stuff.
I don’t get out a lot – social media wise – so I don’t know how well regarded Zelazny’s work is these days. He died way too young at 58 and it would be a shame if he was forgotten.
My reading has been varied. Lately, in pursuit of Dostoevsky I am gleaning from Victor Terras, “History of Russian Literature” I borrowed through the interloan library service. Then I’m re-reading Mark Smith, “The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1” with attention to more detail since now I own a copy.
On the very recent list:
J. D. Crossan’s Render Unto Caesar, which I highly recommend. While I don’t agree with everything he says, his takes on the Book of Revelation and how Acts deals with Paul are very interesting.
I am working through William James’ Varieties or Religious Experience, which I am finding difficult, partly because English has changed so much since it was written.
We All Fall Down. This is a book Stephen mentioned on another thread. As he described, it is a very dark look at the “End Times” written from the point of view of someone left behind after the Rapture. It contains graphic violence, which should come as no surprise, and a LOT of vulgar language. I personally don’t understand many of the protagonist’s choices, and am very hesitant to recommend the book to others even though I found it strangely compelling.
Finally, I am in the middle of reading Alter’s version of Exodus. My method so far has been to read a chapter, or a discrete story block, through, and then go back a read it it again together with the voluminous notes. I bought his entire Old Testament translation, so reading all of this is going to take some time.
On my “to read” list are The Brothers Karamazov and Master & Margarita (another book mentioned by Stephen).
Side note: Yesterday I read a lengthy critique of some works of fiction. Specifically the critique was the Complaint filed by the New York AG v. The Trump Organization, et al. The fictional works she critiqued were the financial statements of DJT. i have a lot of professional experience dealing with business and property valuations, and this was mind boggling.
TTHorne56 said
Side note: Yesterday I read a lengthy critique of some works of fiction. Specifically the critique was the Complaint filed by the New York AG v. The Trump Organization, et al. The fictional works she critiqued were the financial statements of DJT. i have a lot of professional experience dealing with business and property valuations, and this was mind boggling.
Tolkien’s fantasies are better conceived, better written and probably made more money. But it is no longer surprising that the person in question keeps doing outrageous things — he has gotten away with so much so far.
I’m not asking for a book report or anything like that but I would be genuinely interested in the thoughts of everyone reading Dostoevsky when you reach an appropriate point.
We All Fall Down. This is a book Stephen mentioned on another thread. As he described, it is a very dark look at the “End Times” written from the point of view of someone left behind after the Rapture. It contains graphic violence, which should come as no surprise, and a LOT of vulgar language. I personally don’t understand many of the protagonist’s choices, and am very hesitant to recommend the book to others even though I found it strangely compelling.
I’m pleased you gave it try. I think your take is perfect. It is disturbing but it is compelling. Caldwell takes the End Times scenario a lot more seriously than the Left Behind twaddle. It’s almost impossible not to psychologize here. Is the author exorcising some demons? Or exercising them? He had to know he was writing a book that would immediately alienate the Left Behind crowd. I know nothing about Caldwell but I can’t find any evidence of another book. Maybe he got something out of his gut and that’s all he needed.
Side note: Yesterday I read a lengthy critique of some works of fiction. Specifically the critique was the Complaint filed by the New York AG v. The Trump Organization, et al. The fictional works she critiqued were the financial statements of DJT. i have a lot of professional experience dealing with business and property valuations, and this was mind boggling.
With the slipshod materials being used in its construction it was inevitable that the roof of the building would eventually collapse but the Real Estate Developer has spent years creating an alternate reality where he is more sinned against than sinning.
Finally, I am in the middle of reading Alter’s version of Exodus. My method so far has been to read a chapter, or a discrete story block, through, and then go back a read it it again together with the voluminous notes. I bought his entire Old Testament translation, so reading all of this is going to take some time.
Yeah I like Robert Alter. That OT set is one of those works you have to be able to dip into at will. For some reason I started with Ezekiel. I don’t think I’d ever really read Ezekiel before. Just skip to the trippy parts and ignore all that preaching, pausing briefly to inspect the vision of the Restored Temple (whose prescripts contradict the Torah). Brood over Gog and Magog. Alter speculates that Ezekiel might have been mentally ill. Little prepares you for Ezekiel’s seething and churning contempt and utter loathing and fear of the Woman. You can demonstrate that Paul’s views of women have been mischaracterized but not Ezekiel’s. Jeepers. Who can resist psychologizing? Here was a guy who so repressed all his bodily energies (including his sexual energies) until eventually his mind exploded. No wonder he had a somewhat frenzied mystical life. But was it worth it to see the throne of God?
I am currently reading Conscious Capitalism, by John Mackey, for a discussion group. The book is terrible and full of ridiculous statements that fly in the face of actual experience. I am somewhat torn because I very much like the idea that business should consider broader outcomes than just making the most money for the least cost to produce. But the idea that anything like that is or can be inherent in Capitalism is a total fantasy. I am not even sure what regulations might be imposed, other than strict (and to some extent arbitrary) limits on executive and shareholder payments and/or price controls. MacKey was best known as the founder of Whole Foods, which did have something of a reputation for being a decent place to work, but Mackey sold out to Amazon, so I suppose there were limits to such concerns in the end.
JAS said
I am currently reading Conscious Capitalism, by John Mackey, for a discussion group. The book is terrible and full of ridiculous statements that fly in the face of actual experience. I am somewhat torn because I very much like the idea that business should consider broader outcomes than just making the most money for the least cost to produce. But the idea that anything like that is or can be inherent in Capitalism is a total fantasy. I am not even sure what regulations might be imposed, other than strict (and to some extent arbitrary) limits on executive and shareholder payments and/or price controls. MacKey was best known as the founder of Whole Foods, which did have something of a reputation for being a decent place to work, but Mackey sold out to Amazon, so I suppose there were limits to such concerns in the end.
Lol if only there wasn’t almost 200 years of solid critique of capitalism, and the necessity of overcoming it.
Adnantell said
Lol if only there wasn’t almost 200 years of solid critique of capitalism, and the necessity of overcoming it.
In a video presentation on the same topic, Mackey begins by railing about “intellectual” critics who lodge complaints about Capitalism being all about money and power. But further along, he admits that most business owners and managers are attracted to the idea of making money and exercising power. I knew someone some years ago who started a program about ethics in business at a local university, one for which business is a main emphasis. At first, he was extremely enthusiastic about the opportunity presented, but very quickly he came to find that his students were really only interested in how to make the most money without clearly appearing to be bad guys (and gals). They were only interested in the most superficial appearance of behaving ethically, as long as even that did not cost them a lot of money. He retired shortly after coming to this realization. It is much like management in most places, and I have worked in both the private and public sectors, where they are quick to make proclamations along the lines of “our employees are our most valuable asset” but never seem to act in ways that would support that.
Edit: In the same video, he also claims that no other innovation of humanity has improved our living conditions like capitalism — which would not even make my list of top ten. (He also dates this invention to about 200 years ago.) He totally ignores things like language, writing, printing, agriculture, medicine, the discovery of electricity, etc. (And in the book, he basically makes the identical ridiculous claim at the beginning of Chapter 1.)
JAS said
Adnantell said
Lol if only there wasn’t almost 200 years of solid critique of capitalism, and the necessity of overcoming it.
In a video presentation on the same topic, Mackey begins by railing about “intellectual” critics who lodge complaints about Capitalism being all about money and power. But further along, he admits that most business owners and managers are attracted to the idea of making money and exercising power. I knew someone some years ago who started a program about ethics in business at a local university, one for which business is a main emphasis. At first, he was extremely enthusiastic about the opportunity presented, but very quickly he came to find that his students were really only interested in how to make the most money without clearly appearing to be bad guys (and gals). They were only interested in the most superficial appearance of behaving ethically, as long as even that did not cost them a lot of money. He retired shortly after coming to this realization. It is much like management in most places, and I have worked in both the private and public sectors, where they are quick to make proclamations along the lines of “our employees are our most valuable asset” but never seem to act in ways that would support that.
Edit: In the same video, he also claims that no other innovation of humanity has improved our living conditions like capitalism — which would not even make my list of top ten. (He also dates this invention to about 200 years ago.) He totally ignores things like language, writing, printing, agriculture, medicine, etc.
The iron laws of competition and capital accumulation will forever dominate in a society predicated on private property and generalized commodity exchange.
Marxs critique isn’t a critique of “greedy individuals” nor does he ever state that capitalism hasn’t improved society. Notice how 99.999% of individuals who criticize Marx never actually deal with what was written by him or respond to any of his intellectual and political descendants in a major way.
Jordan Peterson discusses the 10 planks of communism as if Marx didn’t repudiate their political efficacy within his lifetime as a goal for a revolutionary workers movement.
On a slightly different note I feel bad for individuals who believe in working within the system because they are the most well meaning marks to have ever existed. People who are willing to question the outcomes of something but not ask why we have these rules for the game in the first place.
Marx’s critique of capitalism (and let us be specific that Mackey is recommending laissez-faire capitalism, which means its form most unfettered by constraints even of its excesses) is on point. Marx’s recommendation for a cure seems, at best, rather naive (admitting that no one has really tried it, at least not on a large scale, probably because it would be very difficult to set up a suitable “test”).
JAS said
Marx’s critique of capitalism (and let us be specific that Mackey is recommending laissez-faire capitalism, which means its form most unfettered by constraints even of its excesses) is on point. Marx’s recommendation for a cure seems, at best, rather naive (admitting that no one has really tried it, at least not on a large scale, probably because it would be very difficult to set up a suitable “test”).
Cure being the negation of capitalist society I don’t really know how you can get past that if you accept his argument. The issue historically and currently has been the actual organizing of the proletariat intercraft/interindustry/ and international.
Though this issue seems to get more and more resolved as we have the worsening of working and living conditions.
The fundamental problem, it seems to me, is that for any body to be effective, it needs to have a considerable amount of power and authority. That same amount of power and authority is, itself, amoral, and the outcome dependent on how it is used. Human nature tends to suggest that it will inevitably be abused. I do not see any systematic means of resolving this problem. (There is an additional problem of whether or not it is possible for that body to have sufficient information about the actual impact of a given action, even assuming that it has noble intentions and motivations.)
JAS said
The fundamental problem, it seems to me, is that for any body to be effective, it needs to have a considerable amount of power and authority. That same amount of power and authority is, itself, amoral, and the outcome dependent on how it is used. Human nature tends to suggest that it will inevitably be abused. I do not see any systematic means of resolving this problem. (There is an additional problem of whether or not it is possible for that body to have sufficient information about the actual impact of a given action, even assuming that it has noble intentions and motivations.)
I don’t really disagree and that’s why I don’t think the communist movement is a catch all problem solver but an antidote to the property problem. Which is the root cause of a plethora of other issues.
Figuring out the correct amount of centralization to safeguards will be a problem solved in real time and we will only know how royally we fucked up after a decision is made.
I’m sympathetic to the recovability of elected officials at any moment, and not being allowed to just kill or kick out non conforming comrades which would seem to be a given but it’s probably worth clarifying 😉
The solution attempted by the founding fathers of the United States was to create multiple bodies and spread out the authority and power somewhat, with a system of checks and balances. In addition to the fact that the original agreement already embraced a host of abuses (perhaps most notably slavery), it anticipated but was not able to prevent what has ultimately happened, as those multiple bodies have effectively been aligned with external influences made powerful mostly by means of money (and also by means of their ability to inflict politically unpleasant effects more or less at whim). This process took time, and was interrupted by the Great Depression and two world wars, but they have gotten very close to achieving their goal, if they have not already done so. A major problem, I think, is that the wealthy class is no longer afraid of the lower classes. The poor have only one real power, and that is to make trouble. No one in power seems to be willing to take on the wealthy because a) they are from that class themselves b) they hope to become members of that class c) the wealthy can fight back. The question is whether the current trick of turning one group of the lower class against another will continue to keep them too busy to turn their sights at the wealthy, or if it will ultimately result in so much chaos and violence that it tears the fabric of society apart. It might not be possible to get the wealthy to curb their excesses until they see the guillotines being brought out, oiled and tested, and by then it might be too late.
Edit: there was a bit of a built-in check when the wealthy lived among, or in fairly close proximity to, those who served them. Now, corporate boards are separated by many states or even other countries from the consequences of their decisions. (Various technologies have exacerbated this problem, and rendered irrelevant legions of middle-managers that also had some local interest in the areas of impact.) That will not ultimately be true of climate change, but those currently making decisions seems to be betting that they will somehow be able to avoid the worst effects themself by means of their wealth, or it will be okay for the remainder of their lives, and certainly not worth making major changes that might cost them or cause them any inconveniences. Anyone betting on a technological solution, including moving out to other planets, is likely to be sadly disappointed.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)