Percy, Walker. "Notes for a Novel About the End of the World" in The Message in the Bottle: How Queer Man Is, How Queer Language Is, And What One Has To Do With the Other. New York: Picador.
Mention of the end of the world occurs frequently in Percy's novels. It is a big part of Love in the Ruins. The novel was published four years after this essay was published. The apocalyptic novel is a form of prophecy warning what will happen if changes are not made. This type of novel is written by a particular type of novelist. It is the type of novelist that wants to see changes in his reader. Percy writes, "A serious novel about the destruction of the United States and the end of the world should perform the function of prophecy in reverse. The novelist writes about the coming end in order to warn about present ills and so avert the end" (101).
Percy thinks the novelist is not a prophet, but is like a prophet. He does not think the novelist is necessarily called to be a prophet. He,nevertheless, sees what going on in the world and he has a certain knowledge where it might end. Percy writes, "The novelist is less like a prophet than he is like a canary that coal miners used to take down into the shaft to test the air. When the canary gets unhappy, utters plaintive cries, and collapses, it may be time for the miners to surface and think things over" (101).
Percy describes the kind of novelist he is talking about. He is defined not necessarily by "merit" but by the "goals" he has. I often think Percy is describing himself when he writes about the serious novelist. Percy continues: He is a "writer who has an explicit and ultimate concern with the nature of man and the nature of reality where he finds himself" (102). Instead of writing a novel driven by plot with familiar characters, he is more likely to "set forth with a stranger in a strange land where the signposts are enigmatic but which he sets out to explore nevertheless" (102). He thinks you could the novelist as "philosophical, metaphysical, prophetic, eschatological, and even religious." (102) He has a special meaning for calling the novelist religious. He thinks both believers and nonbelievers can be considered a religious novelist. He uses the term 'religious' in its root sense signifying a radical bond, as the writer sees it, which connects man with reality--or the failure of such a bond--and so confers meaning to his life--or the absence of meaning" (102-103). He thinks of the following novelists as religious: Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Camus, Sartre, and Flannery O' Connor. He says that some might object since Sartre is an atheist. He thinks Sartre's atheism is religious in the following sense: "that the novelist betrays a passionate conviction about man's nature, the world, and man's obligation to the world" (103). Along the same line, Percy would exclude many English writers like Jane Austen and Samuel Richardson. Percy did not seem to have a high opinion of English novelists. He states that nineteenth century Russian novelists were haunted by God, as were Southern novelists like Flannery O' Connor. He thinks that English novelists were indifferent to the topic.
Percy believes that true prophets are called by God to deliver a particular message to a particular people. He says that novelists exercise a "quasi-prophetic function" (104). His message is bad like the true prophet. He thinks that the "novelist's art is often bad" (104). The novelist seeks to "shock" the reader and warn them about "last things." They might be in "disagreement" with their countrymen. Unlike the prophet, the novelist is not often killed. He says something worse usually happens to them. They are ignored.
He compares these novelists with secular theologians. He thinks that the novelist is likely to believe in original sin and judgement, but the secular theologian is not.
Percy wonders what is the connection modern, secular society and violence. He notes how he is often asked why he does not "write about pleasant things and normal people" (105). He agrees that there are nice people in the world and that it seems people are growing "nicer," but he wonders why as the world grows nicer that it also grows more violent. He writes: "The triumphant secular society of the Western world, the nicest of all worlds, killed more people in the first half of this century than have been killed in all of history. Travelers to Germany before the last war reported that the Germans were the nicest people in Europe" (105). One could point to the Holocaust of babies in our own time. Percy in his novel, The Thanatos Syndrome speaks about our death culture.
Percy thinks the modern novelist is concerned with catastrophe like the orthodox theologian is concerned with original sin and death.
Percy presents his own view of his writing: "As it happens, I speak in a Christian context. That is to say, I do not conceive it my vocation to preach the Christian faith in a novel, but as it happens, my world view is informed by a certain belief about man's nature and destiny which cannot fail to be central to any novel I write" (111).
Percy thinks that "being a Christian novelist nowadays has certain advantages and disadvantages" (111). He thinks that the Christian faith is complementary to what a novel does. Percy writes, "Since novels deal with people and people live in time and get into predicaments, it is probably an advantage to subscribe to a worldview which is incarnational, historical, and predicamental, rather than, say, Buddhism, which tends to devalue individual persons, things, and happenings" (111). He thinks with the current alienation or "dislocation" of man that it is "probably an advantage to see man as by his very nature an exile and wanderer rather than as a behaviorist sees him: as an organism in an environment" (111). He thinks that Camus's stranger has certain connections with the "wayfarer of Saint Thomas and Gabriel Marcel" (111). Percy also thinks if the time we are living in is eschatalogical, "times of enormous danger and commensurate hope, of possible end and possible renewal, the prophetic eschatalogical character of Christianity is no doubt apposite" (111).
There are, however, certain disadvantages in being a Christian novelist. But he wants to return to his question: "What does he see in the world which arouses in him the deepest forebodings and at the same time kindles excitement and hope?' (111).
First, he sees the failure of Christendom. He says, however that the novelist is more concerned with the "person of the scientific humanist than in science and religion" (111). Not is he interested in seeing that the common Christian complaint that materialism and atheism are the enemies.
Percy thinks that the novelist is interested in a "certain quality of the postmodern consciousness as he finds it and as he incarnates it in his own characters. What he finds--in himself and in other people--is a new breed of person in whom the potential for catastrophe--and hope--has suddenly escalated" (112). People are aware of the massive weapons at our disposal to destroy ourselves. Percy thinks the change in the postmodern conscious is what is not realized. He thinks that the "psychological forces presently released in the postmodern consciousness open unlimited possibilities for both destruction and liberation, for an absolute loneliness or a rediscovery of community and reconciliation" (112).
He describes the subject of the postmodern novel: "The subject of the postmodern novel is a man who has very nearly come to the end of the line" (112). It is odd that when he comes to a new city after overcoming all the sufferings of the past that he loses meaning. It is like he bought a ticket to take the train and when he gives the ticket to get off the train that he "must also surrender his passport and become a homeless person" (112). Percy says the American novels in the past focused on characters suffering "social evils," or about people who attacked those evils, or "expatriate Americans," or people in the South haunted by their past. This is not true of the postmodern novel. The protagonist of the postmodern novel has overcome his "bad memories" and overcome certain setbacks and he "finds himself in the victorious secular city" (1120. he has only one major problem: How does he keep himself "from blowing his brains out" (112).
Percy wonders if the Gospel is relevant to the postmodern man. In other words, can he hear the message? Does it register in his consciousness? Does the Secular Age allow the postmodern man to consider Christianity as a possible option to live in this world? Percy writes, "The question is not whether the Good News is no longer relevant, but rather whether it is possible that man is presently undergoing a tempestuous restructuring of his consciousness which that does not allow him to take account of the Good News" (113). Percy states that it is because of the success of scientism: "It is the absorption by the layman not of the scientific method but rather the magical aura of science, whose credentials he accepts for all sectors of reality" (113). He says that people are seduced by scientism "which sunders one's very self from itself into an all-transcending 'objective' consciousness and a consumer-self with a list of needs to be satisfied" (113). Percy continues: "It is this monstrous bifurcation of man into angelic and bestial components against which old theologies must be weighed before new theologies are erected" (113). Percy thinks that this postmodern man is unable to take account of God, the devil, or the angels. This is the reason that a catastrophe or ordeal is needed for the man to recover himself. Percy writes, "When the novelist writes of a man 'coming to himself' through some such catalyst as catastrophe or ordeal, he may be offering obscure testimony to a gross disorder of consciousness and to the need of recovering oneself as neither angel nor organism but as a wayfaring creature somewhere between" (113).
Friday, November 30, 2018
The Man on the Train
Percy, Walker. "The Man on the Train" in The Message in the Bottle: How Queer Man Is, How Queer Language Is, And What One Has To Do With the Other. New York: Picador.
Percy's essay, "Man on the Train" is about alienation. It is a popular essay mentioned often in works on Percy. Percy writes, "There is no such thing, strictly speaking, as a literature of alienation. In the re-presenting of alienation the category is reversed and becomes entirely different. There is a great deal of difference between an alienated commuter riding a train and this same commuter reading a book about an alienated commuter riding a train" (83). Here, Percy makes a distinction between someone riding a train and the same person reading about someone alienated riding the train. Why does he make this distinction? It probably has something to do with his theory of language and theory of man. Reading about an alienated man riding a train somehow names his experience for him and in a sense, he is no longer alienated. Percy says, "The nonreading commuter exists in true alienation, which is unspeakable; the reading commuter rejoices in the speakability of his alienation and in the new triple alliance of himself, the alienated character, and the author" (82).
Percy describes what he means by alienation: "I mean that whereas one may sit on the train and feel himself quite at home, seeing the passing scene as a series of meaningful projects full of signs which he reads without difficulty, another commuter, although he has no empirical reason for being so, although he has satisfied the same empirical needs as commuter A, is alienated" (84). Other terms Percy uses to describe alienation is boredom, unhappy, a feeling of emptiness and being out of place.
Percy thinks that alienation is a "reversal of the objective-empirical" (84). This means that the man should not be alienated because all of his empirical needs have been met. Why do people feel alienated in the best environments. For example, I am a Christian, I have a good job, I have a good family, I have a roof over my head, and all the food I could want. Why do I still feel alienated? Why do I feel lost, out of place? Why does it feel like that this is not my home? Why do I long for something more? Is the materialist, scientific view really satisfying?
I like the image of the train. It indicates that man is on a journey, as we all are.
As Percy earlier said, alienation can be reversed by art. Alienation can be depicted in art, and this somehow decreases the sense of alienation.
Percy was influenced by Kierkegaard and used some of his ideas for his own use. A key idea was the theory of the stages or spheres: Aesthetic, Moral, and Religious. Then, there was Kierkegaard's distinction between the apostle and the genius. Two concepts that appears frequently in Percy's novels are rotation and repetition. One thing one must understand that when Percy appropriates ideas from others he transforms the ideas to his own purposes. In other words, they may look different than the ideas from the original source. Percy is an original thinker. That is why it is incorrect to think that Percy is simply applying the ideas of others in different contexts. Percy has his own fish to fry.
So two terms that Percy appropriates from Kierkegaard are repetition and rotation. These are things that people do to escape their alienation. Another term to try to escape alienation is the ordeal. The problem is that these things work only temporarily. Percy describes rotation and repetition: "It is by virtue of the fact that rotation is the quest for the new as the new, the reposing of all hope in what may lie around the bend, a mode of experience which is much the same in the reading as the experiencing" (86). Percy thinks repetition is a little harder to understand. Percy notes, "Thus when Charles Gray Marquad's Point of No Return returns to Clyde, Massachusetts, or when Tom Wolfe's hero returns to the shabby boardinghouse in St. Louis, the reader can experience repetition only if he imagines that he too is a native of Clyde or has lived in St. Louis. (He doesn't have to imagine he is Huck--it is he, the reader who is drifting down the river.)" (86). Maybe, it will make sense if I give an example from one of Percy's novels. Will Barrett, in The Second Coming returns to his childhood home where his father killed himself. He relives the earlier experience, but he looks at it from a different perspective. For example, he concludes that his father did not have to kill himself. In another episode, he realizes when he was shot by his father, it was not an accident as he earlier thought.
Percy's essay, "Man on the Train" is about alienation. It is a popular essay mentioned often in works on Percy. Percy writes, "There is no such thing, strictly speaking, as a literature of alienation. In the re-presenting of alienation the category is reversed and becomes entirely different. There is a great deal of difference between an alienated commuter riding a train and this same commuter reading a book about an alienated commuter riding a train" (83). Here, Percy makes a distinction between someone riding a train and the same person reading about someone alienated riding the train. Why does he make this distinction? It probably has something to do with his theory of language and theory of man. Reading about an alienated man riding a train somehow names his experience for him and in a sense, he is no longer alienated. Percy says, "The nonreading commuter exists in true alienation, which is unspeakable; the reading commuter rejoices in the speakability of his alienation and in the new triple alliance of himself, the alienated character, and the author" (82).
Percy describes what he means by alienation: "I mean that whereas one may sit on the train and feel himself quite at home, seeing the passing scene as a series of meaningful projects full of signs which he reads without difficulty, another commuter, although he has no empirical reason for being so, although he has satisfied the same empirical needs as commuter A, is alienated" (84). Other terms Percy uses to describe alienation is boredom, unhappy, a feeling of emptiness and being out of place.
Percy thinks that alienation is a "reversal of the objective-empirical" (84). This means that the man should not be alienated because all of his empirical needs have been met. Why do people feel alienated in the best environments. For example, I am a Christian, I have a good job, I have a good family, I have a roof over my head, and all the food I could want. Why do I still feel alienated? Why do I feel lost, out of place? Why does it feel like that this is not my home? Why do I long for something more? Is the materialist, scientific view really satisfying?
I like the image of the train. It indicates that man is on a journey, as we all are.
As Percy earlier said, alienation can be reversed by art. Alienation can be depicted in art, and this somehow decreases the sense of alienation.
Percy was influenced by Kierkegaard and used some of his ideas for his own use. A key idea was the theory of the stages or spheres: Aesthetic, Moral, and Religious. Then, there was Kierkegaard's distinction between the apostle and the genius. Two concepts that appears frequently in Percy's novels are rotation and repetition. One thing one must understand that when Percy appropriates ideas from others he transforms the ideas to his own purposes. In other words, they may look different than the ideas from the original source. Percy is an original thinker. That is why it is incorrect to think that Percy is simply applying the ideas of others in different contexts. Percy has his own fish to fry.
So two terms that Percy appropriates from Kierkegaard are repetition and rotation. These are things that people do to escape their alienation. Another term to try to escape alienation is the ordeal. The problem is that these things work only temporarily. Percy describes rotation and repetition: "It is by virtue of the fact that rotation is the quest for the new as the new, the reposing of all hope in what may lie around the bend, a mode of experience which is much the same in the reading as the experiencing" (86). Percy thinks repetition is a little harder to understand. Percy notes, "Thus when Charles Gray Marquad's Point of No Return returns to Clyde, Massachusetts, or when Tom Wolfe's hero returns to the shabby boardinghouse in St. Louis, the reader can experience repetition only if he imagines that he too is a native of Clyde or has lived in St. Louis. (He doesn't have to imagine he is Huck--it is he, the reader who is drifting down the river.)" (86). Maybe, it will make sense if I give an example from one of Percy's novels. Will Barrett, in The Second Coming returns to his childhood home where his father killed himself. He relives the earlier experience, but he looks at it from a different perspective. For example, he concludes that his father did not have to kill himself. In another episode, he realizes when he was shot by his father, it was not an accident as he earlier thought.
The Loss of the Creature
Percy, Walker. "The Loss of the Creature" in The Message in the Bottle: How Queer Man Is, How Queer Language Is, And What One Has To Do With the Other. New York: Picador.
"The Loss of the Creature" is how man surrenders his sovereignty to experts. He gives the example of seeing the Grand Canyon for the first time. You cannot see it because you are seeing it through the eyes of others, and not your own, For example, you see the Grand Canyon on a tour with a tour guide. The expert is telling you what you ought to see. Another barrier is that instead of looking at the Grand Canyon, the first thing the tourist does is photograph it. Percy asks the question, how can the tourist see the Grand Canyon with fresh eyes. One way is "by leaving the beaten path" (48). Another way is there could be a disruption or a "breakdown of the symbolic machinery by which the experts present the experience" (49). Percy thinks one's sovereignty may also be "recovered in a time of national disaster" (49). One is reminded how ultimate things become real at the time of a disaster. Another example of surrendering one's sovereignty is the need for others to certify it. Instead of confronting the thing directly, the "present experience is always measured by a prototype, the 'it' of their dreams" (53). The loss of the creature occurs when "sovereignty is surrendered to a class of privileged knowers, whether these be theorists or artists" (54).
Another problem is when the object becomes captive to the theory. Percy thinks things can become invisible because of theory. We try to make the thing fit the theory. Percy argues, "The dogfish, the tree, the seashell, the American Negro, the dream, are rendered invisible by a shift of reality from concrete thing to theory which Whitehead has called the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. It is the mistaking of an idea, a principle, an abstraction for the real. As a consequence of the shift, the 'specimen' is seen as less real than the theory of the specimen" (58). Kierkegaard thought when people are "seen as a specimen of a race or species, at that very moment" they stop seeing people as individuals.
"The Loss of the Creature" is how man surrenders his sovereignty to experts. He gives the example of seeing the Grand Canyon for the first time. You cannot see it because you are seeing it through the eyes of others, and not your own, For example, you see the Grand Canyon on a tour with a tour guide. The expert is telling you what you ought to see. Another barrier is that instead of looking at the Grand Canyon, the first thing the tourist does is photograph it. Percy asks the question, how can the tourist see the Grand Canyon with fresh eyes. One way is "by leaving the beaten path" (48). Another way is there could be a disruption or a "breakdown of the symbolic machinery by which the experts present the experience" (49). Percy thinks one's sovereignty may also be "recovered in a time of national disaster" (49). One is reminded how ultimate things become real at the time of a disaster. Another example of surrendering one's sovereignty is the need for others to certify it. Instead of confronting the thing directly, the "present experience is always measured by a prototype, the 'it' of their dreams" (53). The loss of the creature occurs when "sovereignty is surrendered to a class of privileged knowers, whether these be theorists or artists" (54).
Another problem is when the object becomes captive to the theory. Percy thinks things can become invisible because of theory. We try to make the thing fit the theory. Percy argues, "The dogfish, the tree, the seashell, the American Negro, the dream, are rendered invisible by a shift of reality from concrete thing to theory which Whitehead has called the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. It is the mistaking of an idea, a principle, an abstraction for the real. As a consequence of the shift, the 'specimen' is seen as less real than the theory of the specimen" (58). Kierkegaard thought when people are "seen as a specimen of a race or species, at that very moment" they stop seeing people as individuals.
Walker Percy's Delta Factor Part 5
Percy, Walker. "The Delta Factor" in The Message in the Bottle: How Queer Man Is, How Queer Language Is, And What One Has To Do With the Other. New York: Picador.
As mentioned earlier, Percy was attempting to diagram what happened to Helen Keller at the well-house. In his diagram, he has Helen, water (word), and water (the liquid). He concluded that what happened to Helen was not a stimulus-response event. Helen received "both the sensory message from the hand Miss Sullivan was spelling in and that from the other hand, which the water was flowing over" (37). Percy wonders after this happened, then, "What happened in Helen's head?" (37). He believed that Helen's breakthrough had great significance. Before her breakthrough, she had acted like "a good responding organism" (38). After her breakthrough, she acted "like a rejoicing symbol-mongering human" (38). Before she was simply like other animals responding to an environment. After, she had become completely "human."
What was Percy's breakthrough? His breakthrough was determining that Helen's experience was a triadic event, not a dyadic event. He calls this event the Delta Factor. There were three elements involved in this triadic event: Helen, water, and the word water. Percy writes, "The Delta phenomenon lies at the heart of every event that has ever occurred in which a sentence is understood, a name is given or received, a painting printed or viewed" (40).
Percy wonders if by using this Delta phenomenon, one could come up with a theory of man. Would it help to understand man as the languaged animal. Could it explain "the manifold woes, predicaments, and estrangements of man" (41). Remember, Percy believed that a Theory of man had to account for the alienation of man. He knew that the "conventional wisdom was a mishmash: man set forth as 'organism in an environment' but man also . . . set forth as repository of democratic and Judeo-Christian 'values.' (41) In other words, the modern theory of man is incoherent.
Percy's breakthrough would hold his attention for a very long time.
As mentioned earlier, Percy was attempting to diagram what happened to Helen Keller at the well-house. In his diagram, he has Helen, water (word), and water (the liquid). He concluded that what happened to Helen was not a stimulus-response event. Helen received "both the sensory message from the hand Miss Sullivan was spelling in and that from the other hand, which the water was flowing over" (37). Percy wonders after this happened, then, "What happened in Helen's head?" (37). He believed that Helen's breakthrough had great significance. Before her breakthrough, she had acted like "a good responding organism" (38). After her breakthrough, she acted "like a rejoicing symbol-mongering human" (38). Before she was simply like other animals responding to an environment. After, she had become completely "human."
What was Percy's breakthrough? His breakthrough was determining that Helen's experience was a triadic event, not a dyadic event. He calls this event the Delta Factor. There were three elements involved in this triadic event: Helen, water, and the word water. Percy writes, "The Delta phenomenon lies at the heart of every event that has ever occurred in which a sentence is understood, a name is given or received, a painting printed or viewed" (40).
Percy wonders if by using this Delta phenomenon, one could come up with a theory of man. Would it help to understand man as the languaged animal. Could it explain "the manifold woes, predicaments, and estrangements of man" (41). Remember, Percy believed that a Theory of man had to account for the alienation of man. He knew that the "conventional wisdom was a mishmash: man set forth as 'organism in an environment' but man also . . . set forth as repository of democratic and Judeo-Christian 'values.' (41) In other words, the modern theory of man is incoherent.
Percy's breakthrough would hold his attention for a very long time.
Thursday, November 29, 2018
Walker Percy's Delta Factor Part 4
Percy, Walker. "The Delta Factor" in The Message in the Bottle: How Queer Man Is, How Queer Language Is, And What One Has To Do With the Other. New York: Picador.
Percy says the old modern age ended in 1914.
The Martian concluded two things: (1) that man "had crossed the language barrier and spent most of his time symbolmongering and;" and (2) that man had a tendency for "upside-down feelings and behavior, feeling bad when he expected to feel good, preferring war to peace, and in general being miserable at the time and in the place which he had every reason to expect to be the best of all possible worlds, it seemed to the Martian that earth scientists might do well to search for the explanation of trait 2 in trait 1, or at least to explore the connection between the two" (28).
Percy thinks that "man's capacity for symbol mongering in general and language in particular" is deeply connected to their being human, "of his perceiving and knowing," of consciousness, that it is difficult to study what man sees through to know everything else (29).
To see it, one had to be a Martian or a person on earth, "sufficiently detached, marooned, bemused, wounded, and lucky enough" to become a Martian for a brief time to "catch a glimpse of it" (29).
Percy describes how he had his awakening experience: "The day I was thinking about Helen Keller and became a Martian for five seconds, making a breakthrough like Helen's, the difference being that her breakthrough was something she did and my breakthrough was a sudden understanding of what she did" (30).
He, on a typical day in the summer was sitting at his desk thinking about a day in Helen's life. He explains: he was trying to understand what happens "when a child hears a word, a sound uttered by someone else, and understands that it is the name of something he sees" (30). Percy tried to draw the process with diagrams. He thought for a long time that a few short paragraphs of Helen's story contained the mystery of language, and if one could understand this secret mystery one could understand what it meant to be a symbol-mongerer.
He was unsatisfied by the literature on the subject. The behaviorists wanted to explain the mystery as a "stimulus-response event" (30). For example, they wanted to explain it like Pavlov's dog salivating when he heard the bell. He thought it was a simple, but "valuable model" (31). He says it works in certain circumstances. For example, when a person cries for help and someone comes to help him. The problem was how could it be used to explain people gathered around a fire telling stories. He would try to diagram what occurred, but it was problematic. Percy explains, "Something in fact usually went wrong with the behaviorist S-R model whenever it was applied to a characteristically symbolic transaction, telling a story, looking at a painting and understanding it, a father pointing at a ball and naming it for his child, a poet hitting on a superb metaphor and the reader 'getting' it with the old authentic thrill Barfield speaks of" (32). The behaviorist was forced to stretched his theory all out of proportion to fit the event. In other words, it did not fit the event. It just did not work for symbolic transactions. Percy inquires with questions: "how does it happen that you can talk and I can understand you? Or, how does it happen that you can write a book and I can read it? Or, if the world is really unknowable, why do scientists act as if there were something out there to be known and as if they could even get at the truth of the way things are?" (33).
He was sitting at his desk in Louisiana thinking about these things. Then he began to think about what happened to Helen Keller at the well one summer morning in 1887. Before the event, Helen had responded like "any good animal" (34). When she wanted something she would sign it into her teacher's hand. Miss Sulivan took Helen for a walk to the well. Percy quotes from Helen's story:
We walked down the path to the well-house, attracted by the fragrance of the honeysuckle with which it was covered. Someone was drawing water and my teacher placed my hand under the spout. As the cool stream gushed over one hand, she spelled into the other the word water, first slowly then rapidly. I stood still, my whole attention fixed upon the motion of her fingers. Suddenly I felt a misty consciousness as of something forgotten--a thrill of returning thought; and somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me. I knew then that 'w-a-t-e-r' meant that wonderful cool something that was flowing over my hand. That living word awakened my soul, gave it light, hope, joy, set it free! There were barriers still, it is true, but barriers that could in time be swept away.
I left the well-house eager to learn. Everything had a name, and each name gave birth to a new thought. As we returned to the house every object which I touched seem to quiver with life. That was because I saw everything with the strange, new sight that had come to me. On entering the door I remembered the doll I had broken. [She had earlier destroyed the doll in a fit of temper.] I felt my way to the hearth and picked up the pieces. I tried vainly to put them together. Then my eyes filled with tears; for I realized what I had done, and for the first time felt repentance and sorrow.
I learned a great many new words that day. I do not remember what they all were; but I do know that mother, father, sister, teacher were among them--words that were to make the world blossom for me, like Aaron's rod with flowers. It would have been difficult to find a happier child than I was as I lay in my crib at the close of that eventful day and lived over the joys it had brought me, and for the first time longed for a new day to come.
Percy notes that something mysterious happened at this well-house. Helen had gone from being like any other animal in an environment to being a languaged creature: a "strange name-giving and sentence uttering creature who begins by naming" typical objects like shoes, boats, and ink, and then "tells jokes, curses, reads the paper. . . or becomes Hegel and composes an entire system of philosophy" (35). Percy reasoned that if he could figure out what happened at that well-house, he would be able to know about the "phenomenon of language and about man himself" (36).
Percy says the old modern age ended in 1914.
The Martian concluded two things: (1) that man "had crossed the language barrier and spent most of his time symbolmongering and;" and (2) that man had a tendency for "upside-down feelings and behavior, feeling bad when he expected to feel good, preferring war to peace, and in general being miserable at the time and in the place which he had every reason to expect to be the best of all possible worlds, it seemed to the Martian that earth scientists might do well to search for the explanation of trait 2 in trait 1, or at least to explore the connection between the two" (28).
Percy thinks that "man's capacity for symbol mongering in general and language in particular" is deeply connected to their being human, "of his perceiving and knowing," of consciousness, that it is difficult to study what man sees through to know everything else (29).
To see it, one had to be a Martian or a person on earth, "sufficiently detached, marooned, bemused, wounded, and lucky enough" to become a Martian for a brief time to "catch a glimpse of it" (29).
Percy describes how he had his awakening experience: "The day I was thinking about Helen Keller and became a Martian for five seconds, making a breakthrough like Helen's, the difference being that her breakthrough was something she did and my breakthrough was a sudden understanding of what she did" (30).
He, on a typical day in the summer was sitting at his desk thinking about a day in Helen's life. He explains: he was trying to understand what happens "when a child hears a word, a sound uttered by someone else, and understands that it is the name of something he sees" (30). Percy tried to draw the process with diagrams. He thought for a long time that a few short paragraphs of Helen's story contained the mystery of language, and if one could understand this secret mystery one could understand what it meant to be a symbol-mongerer.
He was unsatisfied by the literature on the subject. The behaviorists wanted to explain the mystery as a "stimulus-response event" (30). For example, they wanted to explain it like Pavlov's dog salivating when he heard the bell. He thought it was a simple, but "valuable model" (31). He says it works in certain circumstances. For example, when a person cries for help and someone comes to help him. The problem was how could it be used to explain people gathered around a fire telling stories. He would try to diagram what occurred, but it was problematic. Percy explains, "Something in fact usually went wrong with the behaviorist S-R model whenever it was applied to a characteristically symbolic transaction, telling a story, looking at a painting and understanding it, a father pointing at a ball and naming it for his child, a poet hitting on a superb metaphor and the reader 'getting' it with the old authentic thrill Barfield speaks of" (32). The behaviorist was forced to stretched his theory all out of proportion to fit the event. In other words, it did not fit the event. It just did not work for symbolic transactions. Percy inquires with questions: "how does it happen that you can talk and I can understand you? Or, how does it happen that you can write a book and I can read it? Or, if the world is really unknowable, why do scientists act as if there were something out there to be known and as if they could even get at the truth of the way things are?" (33).
He was sitting at his desk in Louisiana thinking about these things. Then he began to think about what happened to Helen Keller at the well one summer morning in 1887. Before the event, Helen had responded like "any good animal" (34). When she wanted something she would sign it into her teacher's hand. Miss Sulivan took Helen for a walk to the well. Percy quotes from Helen's story:
We walked down the path to the well-house, attracted by the fragrance of the honeysuckle with which it was covered. Someone was drawing water and my teacher placed my hand under the spout. As the cool stream gushed over one hand, she spelled into the other the word water, first slowly then rapidly. I stood still, my whole attention fixed upon the motion of her fingers. Suddenly I felt a misty consciousness as of something forgotten--a thrill of returning thought; and somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me. I knew then that 'w-a-t-e-r' meant that wonderful cool something that was flowing over my hand. That living word awakened my soul, gave it light, hope, joy, set it free! There were barriers still, it is true, but barriers that could in time be swept away.
I left the well-house eager to learn. Everything had a name, and each name gave birth to a new thought. As we returned to the house every object which I touched seem to quiver with life. That was because I saw everything with the strange, new sight that had come to me. On entering the door I remembered the doll I had broken. [She had earlier destroyed the doll in a fit of temper.] I felt my way to the hearth and picked up the pieces. I tried vainly to put them together. Then my eyes filled with tears; for I realized what I had done, and for the first time felt repentance and sorrow.
I learned a great many new words that day. I do not remember what they all were; but I do know that mother, father, sister, teacher were among them--words that were to make the world blossom for me, like Aaron's rod with flowers. It would have been difficult to find a happier child than I was as I lay in my crib at the close of that eventful day and lived over the joys it had brought me, and for the first time longed for a new day to come.
Percy notes that something mysterious happened at this well-house. Helen had gone from being like any other animal in an environment to being a languaged creature: a "strange name-giving and sentence uttering creature who begins by naming" typical objects like shoes, boats, and ink, and then "tells jokes, curses, reads the paper. . . or becomes Hegel and composes an entire system of philosophy" (35). Percy reasoned that if he could figure out what happened at that well-house, he would be able to know about the "phenomenon of language and about man himself" (36).
Walker Percy's Delta Factor Part 3
Percy, Walker. "The Delta Factor" in The Message in the Bottle: How Queer Man Is, How Queer Language Is, And What One Has To Do With the Other. New York: Picador.
A big emphasis in Percy's writings is the alienation of man. A theory of man must be able to account for this alienation. The scientific theory that man is an organism in an environment fails to account for the alienation of man.
Percy notes that the Judeo-Christian anthropology does account for the alienation of man. Percy writes: "By the very cogent anthropology of Judeo-Christianity, whether or not one agreed with it, human existence was by no means to be understood as the transaction of a higher organism satisfying this or that need from its environment, by being creative or enjoying 'meaningful relationships,' but as the journey of a wayfarer along life's way. The experience of alienation was thus not a symptom of maladaptation (psychology) nor evidence of the absurdity of life (existentialism) nor an inevitable consequence of capitalism (Marx) nor the necessary dehumanization of technology (Ellul). Though the exacerbating influence of these forces were not denied, it was not to be forgotten that human alienation was first and last the homelessness of a man who is not in fact at home" (24).
The Judeo-Christian anthropology was "cogent enough and flexible enough, too, to accommodate the several topical alienations of the twentieth century" (24). The problem with accepting this theory one had to accept the idea of an original Fall. To believe this was an obstacle for the scientist and the humanist.
Instead of accepting a Fall, they accepted that people are basically good. Percy states that the scientists "re-entered Eden, where scientists know like the angels, and laymen prosper in good environments, and ethical democracies progress through education" (24). Percy says be believing this they deny themselves the ability to deal with the particular predicament of man: "deprived themselves of the means of understanding and averting dread catastrophes which were to overtake Eden and of dealing with the perverse and ungrateful beneficiaries of science and ethics who preferred to eat lotus like the Laodiceans or roam the dark violent world like Ishmael and Cain" (24).
"Then Eden turned into the twentieth century" (24).
Percy thinks that the modern world has ended and we are now in some kind of post-modern, post-Christian world. Possibly, Charles Taylor's Secular Age. In this new age people are unable to understand themselves by the theories of this age.
Percy notes that scientists and humanists were saying something different than the poets and artists of this age. Scientists and humanists were saying that we are progressing in knowledge about people and this world. We just need to apply their theories and we will make a better world. But the poets and artists were saying something different that though man should be happy in this age, they were actually homeless in this world. Percy points out that "something was wrong" (25). Percy thinks the poets and artists are correct.
Percy thinks the world ended when people could no longer understand themselves by the theories of the age "which was informed by the spirit of abstraction," and they could not speak a single word to the individual, but could speak to him "only as he resembled other selves" (26).
A big emphasis in Percy's writings is the alienation of man. A theory of man must be able to account for this alienation. The scientific theory that man is an organism in an environment fails to account for the alienation of man.
Percy notes that the Judeo-Christian anthropology does account for the alienation of man. Percy writes: "By the very cogent anthropology of Judeo-Christianity, whether or not one agreed with it, human existence was by no means to be understood as the transaction of a higher organism satisfying this or that need from its environment, by being creative or enjoying 'meaningful relationships,' but as the journey of a wayfarer along life's way. The experience of alienation was thus not a symptom of maladaptation (psychology) nor evidence of the absurdity of life (existentialism) nor an inevitable consequence of capitalism (Marx) nor the necessary dehumanization of technology (Ellul). Though the exacerbating influence of these forces were not denied, it was not to be forgotten that human alienation was first and last the homelessness of a man who is not in fact at home" (24).
The Judeo-Christian anthropology was "cogent enough and flexible enough, too, to accommodate the several topical alienations of the twentieth century" (24). The problem with accepting this theory one had to accept the idea of an original Fall. To believe this was an obstacle for the scientist and the humanist.
Instead of accepting a Fall, they accepted that people are basically good. Percy states that the scientists "re-entered Eden, where scientists know like the angels, and laymen prosper in good environments, and ethical democracies progress through education" (24). Percy says be believing this they deny themselves the ability to deal with the particular predicament of man: "deprived themselves of the means of understanding and averting dread catastrophes which were to overtake Eden and of dealing with the perverse and ungrateful beneficiaries of science and ethics who preferred to eat lotus like the Laodiceans or roam the dark violent world like Ishmael and Cain" (24).
"Then Eden turned into the twentieth century" (24).
Percy thinks that the modern world has ended and we are now in some kind of post-modern, post-Christian world. Possibly, Charles Taylor's Secular Age. In this new age people are unable to understand themselves by the theories of this age.
Percy notes that scientists and humanists were saying something different than the poets and artists of this age. Scientists and humanists were saying that we are progressing in knowledge about people and this world. We just need to apply their theories and we will make a better world. But the poets and artists were saying something different that though man should be happy in this age, they were actually homeless in this world. Percy points out that "something was wrong" (25). Percy thinks the poets and artists are correct.
Percy thinks the world ended when people could no longer understand themselves by the theories of the age "which was informed by the spirit of abstraction," and they could not speak a single word to the individual, but could speak to him "only as he resembled other selves" (26).
Wednesday, November 28, 2018
Walker Percy's The Delta Factor Part 2
Percy, Walker. "The Delta Factor" in The Message in the Bottle: How Queer Man Is, How Queer Language Is, And What One Has To Do With the Other. New York: Picador.
Percy wants to look at the Delta Factor through a person not familiar with the situation. For example, what would it look like to a martian? Percy believes he qualifies for a martian: "As a nonpsychologist, nonanthropologist, a nontheologian, a nontheologist--as in fact nothing more than a novelist--I qualift through my ignorance as a terrestial Martian. Since I am only a novelist, a somewhat estranged and detached person whose business it is to see things and people as if he had never seen them before, it is possible for me not only to observe people as data but to observe scientists observing people as data--in short to take a Martian view" (11). Percy considers himself to be a martian with an outsider's view. The interesting thing is he sees the whole picture even the scientist observing people, the perspective that gets left out in the scientist's account. The Martian view would observe how frequently people use language: "That they are forever making mouthy little sounds, clicks, hisses, howls, hoots, explosions, squeaks, some of which name things in the world and are uttered in short sequences that say something about these things and events in the world" (12). Before he came to the earth, the Martian had read many books on man by biologists, psychologists, sociologists, and others. They emphasized that man was not much different from the animals. The Martian, however, noticed that the "earthlings talk all the time or otherwise traffic in symbols: gossip, tell jokes, argue, make reports, deliver lectures, listen to lectures, take notes, write books, read books, paint pictures, look at pictures, attend plays, tell stories, listen to stories. . ." (12-13). The earth scientists insist that man is not much different from other earth creatures. They tell him how they spend millions on studying monkeys, chimpanzees, and other animals. The Martian responds that people talk all the time. "Why don't you investigate that?" (13).
Percy asserts, "It was no coincidence when the Martian discovered that earthlings, who have a theory about everything else, do not have a theory about language and do not have a theory about man" (17). Percy is pointing out that language might be the key to developing a theory of man.
Percy states that there is the traditional view of man from a religious perspective: a person with a soul and the scientific view that man is an organism in an environment. Percy wants to develop his theory of man differently. He describes man as man the talker or man the symbol-monger. He asserts, "Instead of starting out with such large vexed subjects as soul, mind, ideas, consciousness, why not begin with language, which no one denies, and see how far it takes us toward the rest" (17). Percy accepts the biblical view of man, but he knows that simply describing man from a Biblical perspective with not work in a secular age. So he wants to work from a foundation that most people accepts. Percy describes the irony of behaviorists studying people through a stimulus-response theory which does not account for the activity of the behaviorist. He suggests that we study the behaviorist through a "larger theory of language" (17) because they are not accounted for in behaviorist theory since behaviorists "not only study responses; they write articles and deliver lectures, setting forth what they take to be the truth about responses, and would be offended if anyone suggested that their writings and lectures were nothing more than responses and therefore no more true or false than a dog's salivation" (17).
Percy says that his theory will make certain assumptions. First, the current theory of language is incoherent; second, the current theories of man are incoherent, and that the incoherences are related. Percy thinks there are two different options for a theory of man: one, he "can be understood as an organism in an environment"(20). Second, he can be "understood to be somehow endowed with certain other unique properties which he does not share with other organisms" (20).
Percy believes there are certain limitations with the scientific method. For one, science can say nothing about the individual. Percy asserts, "Science cannot utter a single word about an individual molecule, thing, or creature in so far as it is an individual but only in so far as it is like other individuals" (22). Percy often states that the problem is that laymen in science idolize scientists, but science cannot say anything about them as an individual knower, only how they are similar to other knowers.
Percy wants to look at the Delta Factor through a person not familiar with the situation. For example, what would it look like to a martian? Percy believes he qualifies for a martian: "As a nonpsychologist, nonanthropologist, a nontheologian, a nontheologist--as in fact nothing more than a novelist--I qualift through my ignorance as a terrestial Martian. Since I am only a novelist, a somewhat estranged and detached person whose business it is to see things and people as if he had never seen them before, it is possible for me not only to observe people as data but to observe scientists observing people as data--in short to take a Martian view" (11). Percy considers himself to be a martian with an outsider's view. The interesting thing is he sees the whole picture even the scientist observing people, the perspective that gets left out in the scientist's account. The Martian view would observe how frequently people use language: "That they are forever making mouthy little sounds, clicks, hisses, howls, hoots, explosions, squeaks, some of which name things in the world and are uttered in short sequences that say something about these things and events in the world" (12). Before he came to the earth, the Martian had read many books on man by biologists, psychologists, sociologists, and others. They emphasized that man was not much different from the animals. The Martian, however, noticed that the "earthlings talk all the time or otherwise traffic in symbols: gossip, tell jokes, argue, make reports, deliver lectures, listen to lectures, take notes, write books, read books, paint pictures, look at pictures, attend plays, tell stories, listen to stories. . ." (12-13). The earth scientists insist that man is not much different from other earth creatures. They tell him how they spend millions on studying monkeys, chimpanzees, and other animals. The Martian responds that people talk all the time. "Why don't you investigate that?" (13).
Percy asserts, "It was no coincidence when the Martian discovered that earthlings, who have a theory about everything else, do not have a theory about language and do not have a theory about man" (17). Percy is pointing out that language might be the key to developing a theory of man.
Percy states that there is the traditional view of man from a religious perspective: a person with a soul and the scientific view that man is an organism in an environment. Percy wants to develop his theory of man differently. He describes man as man the talker or man the symbol-monger. He asserts, "Instead of starting out with such large vexed subjects as soul, mind, ideas, consciousness, why not begin with language, which no one denies, and see how far it takes us toward the rest" (17). Percy accepts the biblical view of man, but he knows that simply describing man from a Biblical perspective with not work in a secular age. So he wants to work from a foundation that most people accepts. Percy describes the irony of behaviorists studying people through a stimulus-response theory which does not account for the activity of the behaviorist. He suggests that we study the behaviorist through a "larger theory of language" (17) because they are not accounted for in behaviorist theory since behaviorists "not only study responses; they write articles and deliver lectures, setting forth what they take to be the truth about responses, and would be offended if anyone suggested that their writings and lectures were nothing more than responses and therefore no more true or false than a dog's salivation" (17).
Percy says that his theory will make certain assumptions. First, the current theory of language is incoherent; second, the current theories of man are incoherent, and that the incoherences are related. Percy thinks there are two different options for a theory of man: one, he "can be understood as an organism in an environment"(20). Second, he can be "understood to be somehow endowed with certain other unique properties which he does not share with other organisms" (20).
Percy believes there are certain limitations with the scientific method. For one, science can say nothing about the individual. Percy asserts, "Science cannot utter a single word about an individual molecule, thing, or creature in so far as it is an individual but only in so far as it is like other individuals" (22). Percy often states that the problem is that laymen in science idolize scientists, but science cannot say anything about them as an individual knower, only how they are similar to other knowers.
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
Walker Percy and The Delta Factor, Part I
Percy, Walker. "The Delta Factor" in The Message in the Bottle: How Queer Man Is, How Queer Language Is, And What One Has To Do With the Other. New York: Picador.
The Delta Factor is the first essay in Percy's book The Message in the Bottle. It was first published in January 1975 in The Southern Review. The essay is a good introduction to the book because it discusses the major theme of the book: how can language help us develop a theory of Man (and Woman). Percy introduces the essay about describing "the Delta Factor": "How I discovered the Delta Factor sitting at my desk one summer day in Louisiana in the 1950's thinking about an event in the Life of Helen Keller on another summer day in Alabama in 1887" (3). This even is mentioned many times in his writing. It is like it was a revelation for him. He is referring to the experience of Helen Keller at the well with water. It was there that it was revealed to her that water, the concept was related to water the material thing. After her birth into language, she transcended her environment. She no longer was captive to her environment, but actually transcended it.
Another strategy he uses in his writing is asking one question after another. A sample from this essay:
Why does man feel so sad in the twentieth century? Why does man feel so bad in the very age when, more than in any other age, he has succeeded in satisfying his needs and making over the world for his own use?. . . . Why do people often feel bad in good environments and good in bad environments? Why do people often feel so bad in good environments that they prefer bad environments? (4).
There are other questions, but this is a good sample of them. It definitely gets one thinking. Maybe, it opens a door for a conversation with the reader. Percy asks questions about modern theories of man and why it does not work. He hints that one age has ended and we are in transition to a new age (secular?). He states that people cannot understand themselves by the theories of modern times. He asks the question, what is different about man? He distinguishes between animals and man living in an environment. Why does man feel bad in a good environment? Is this something animal feels? He states that the theory of man that says man is like another organism in an environment does not work. We need to find another theory for man. He believes the place to start is language. He asks the question: "What does it entail to be a speaking creature, that is, a creature who names things and utter sentences about things which other similar creatures understand and misunderstand? " (8).
He thinks there is a gap between animal speech and human speech. He believes humans are different from animals in kind, not just degree. He wonders if language is the key than could tell us about this difference. He asks, "Why is it that scientists have a theory about everything under the sun but do not have a theory of man?" (8). He thinks that the scientist's theories explains everything, but the scientist. He thinks that the "old modern world" has ended. He asserts, "Man knows he is something more than an organism in an environment, because for one thing he acts like anything but an organism in an environment" (9). Percy makes this point over and over again in his work.
Percy says that his book (and this essay) is about "two things, man's strange behavior and man strange gift of language, and about how understanding the latter might help understanding the former" (9). Percy believed that by understanding the language of man, one could understand man. He does not think a theory of man now exists. He is probably thinking a coherent theory of man. Percy thought about the theory of man and the theory of language most of his life. It had an impact on his novels. Percy recognizes that he is an amateur in this discipline, but he refuses to surrender it to the experts. Percy notes, "So the book is not about language but about the creatures who use it and what happens when they do. Since no other creature but man uses language, it is really an anthrpology, a study of man doing the uniquely human thing" (11).
The Delta Factor is the first essay in Percy's book The Message in the Bottle. It was first published in January 1975 in The Southern Review. The essay is a good introduction to the book because it discusses the major theme of the book: how can language help us develop a theory of Man (and Woman). Percy introduces the essay about describing "the Delta Factor": "How I discovered the Delta Factor sitting at my desk one summer day in Louisiana in the 1950's thinking about an event in the Life of Helen Keller on another summer day in Alabama in 1887" (3). This even is mentioned many times in his writing. It is like it was a revelation for him. He is referring to the experience of Helen Keller at the well with water. It was there that it was revealed to her that water, the concept was related to water the material thing. After her birth into language, she transcended her environment. She no longer was captive to her environment, but actually transcended it.
Another strategy he uses in his writing is asking one question after another. A sample from this essay:
Why does man feel so sad in the twentieth century? Why does man feel so bad in the very age when, more than in any other age, he has succeeded in satisfying his needs and making over the world for his own use?. . . . Why do people often feel bad in good environments and good in bad environments? Why do people often feel so bad in good environments that they prefer bad environments? (4).
There are other questions, but this is a good sample of them. It definitely gets one thinking. Maybe, it opens a door for a conversation with the reader. Percy asks questions about modern theories of man and why it does not work. He hints that one age has ended and we are in transition to a new age (secular?). He states that people cannot understand themselves by the theories of modern times. He asks the question, what is different about man? He distinguishes between animals and man living in an environment. Why does man feel bad in a good environment? Is this something animal feels? He states that the theory of man that says man is like another organism in an environment does not work. We need to find another theory for man. He believes the place to start is language. He asks the question: "What does it entail to be a speaking creature, that is, a creature who names things and utter sentences about things which other similar creatures understand and misunderstand? " (8).
He thinks there is a gap between animal speech and human speech. He believes humans are different from animals in kind, not just degree. He wonders if language is the key than could tell us about this difference. He asks, "Why is it that scientists have a theory about everything under the sun but do not have a theory of man?" (8). He thinks that the scientist's theories explains everything, but the scientist. He thinks that the "old modern world" has ended. He asserts, "Man knows he is something more than an organism in an environment, because for one thing he acts like anything but an organism in an environment" (9). Percy makes this point over and over again in his work.
Percy says that his book (and this essay) is about "two things, man's strange behavior and man strange gift of language, and about how understanding the latter might help understanding the former" (9). Percy believed that by understanding the language of man, one could understand man. He does not think a theory of man now exists. He is probably thinking a coherent theory of man. Percy thought about the theory of man and the theory of language most of his life. It had an impact on his novels. Percy recognizes that he is an amateur in this discipline, but he refuses to surrender it to the experts. Percy notes, "So the book is not about language but about the creatures who use it and what happens when they do. Since no other creature but man uses language, it is really an anthrpology, a study of man doing the uniquely human thing" (11).
Truth, Goodness, beauty, and Thomas Aquinas
Ramos, Alice. Dynamic Transcendentals: Truth, Goodness, and Beauty from a Thomistic Perspective. Washington, D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2012.
Dynamic Transcendentals: Truth, Goodness, and Beauty from a Thomistic Perspective by Alice Ramos is a collection of essays that analyze the connection between Thomas Aquinas and truth, goodness, and beauty. The essays are quite wide-ranging showing the different directions this research takes. She became interested in the transcendentals when she was doing graduate studies in Philosophy in Spain. The past several years her work on the transcendentals have appeared in different journals and as book chapters. Some of the essays in this book has been previously published in various journals. The discussion of beauty and how it relates to the other transcendentals is insightful. Her analysis of The Picture of Dorian Gray is excellent. She did not mean this book to be a systematic presentation of the topic. It is more like she is exploring these topics with us. She emphasizes an anthropological perspective and a practical understanding of the topic. She discusses a wide-range of metaphysical, aesthetic, and anthropological topics.
The book includes three parts: part 1, "Truth, Measure, and Virtue;" part 2, "Beauty, Order, and Teleology;" PART 3, "Goodness and Beauty: human Reason and the True Good." Chapter one shows a link between the truth of creation and a desire for God. She connects Aquinas' desire for God with Aristotle's metaphysics. She believes that because of creation there is a natural desire for God. In chapter two she analyses Thomas' teaching on measure. She believes it is an important part of his metaphysics. This teaching of measure connects virtue with the intellect. Chapter three discusses "the affections and the life of the mind." She addresses challenges "posed by contemporary culture to an understanding of the life of the mind in terms of the pursuit and love of truth" (47). Chapter four begins part 2. It covers beauty and the perfections of being. She discusses the order of the creation, how the universe is directed to an end, and providence and human freedom. The next chapter covers providence and evil. Chapter six discusses shame and vulnerability in the Christian life. Chapter seven discusses the connection between beauty and the human good. The next chapter discusses signs and God in the world. She states that humans are signs of God in this world.
Chapter nine begins the last part. It connects beauty with the good and explains how nonvirtuous people can see "the beauty of a good act." She believes that the "moral and the aesthetic orders are closely related" whoch causes how the unvirtuous can see beauty.Chapter ten covers "moral beauty and affective knowledge." She disagrees with the modern disconnection of beauty from ethics or morality. The last chapter covers art, beauty, and the human life. She disagrees with the relativizing of truth, beauty, and goodness. She believes beauty can connect us to truth and goodness.
The author does a good job in allowing us to explore the connections between truth, beauty, and goodness in Thomistic thought.
Dynamic Transcendentals: Truth, Goodness, and Beauty from a Thomistic Perspective by Alice Ramos is a collection of essays that analyze the connection between Thomas Aquinas and truth, goodness, and beauty. The essays are quite wide-ranging showing the different directions this research takes. She became interested in the transcendentals when she was doing graduate studies in Philosophy in Spain. The past several years her work on the transcendentals have appeared in different journals and as book chapters. Some of the essays in this book has been previously published in various journals. The discussion of beauty and how it relates to the other transcendentals is insightful. Her analysis of The Picture of Dorian Gray is excellent. She did not mean this book to be a systematic presentation of the topic. It is more like she is exploring these topics with us. She emphasizes an anthropological perspective and a practical understanding of the topic. She discusses a wide-range of metaphysical, aesthetic, and anthropological topics.
The book includes three parts: part 1, "Truth, Measure, and Virtue;" part 2, "Beauty, Order, and Teleology;" PART 3, "Goodness and Beauty: human Reason and the True Good." Chapter one shows a link between the truth of creation and a desire for God. She connects Aquinas' desire for God with Aristotle's metaphysics. She believes that because of creation there is a natural desire for God. In chapter two she analyses Thomas' teaching on measure. She believes it is an important part of his metaphysics. This teaching of measure connects virtue with the intellect. Chapter three discusses "the affections and the life of the mind." She addresses challenges "posed by contemporary culture to an understanding of the life of the mind in terms of the pursuit and love of truth" (47). Chapter four begins part 2. It covers beauty and the perfections of being. She discusses the order of the creation, how the universe is directed to an end, and providence and human freedom. The next chapter covers providence and evil. Chapter six discusses shame and vulnerability in the Christian life. Chapter seven discusses the connection between beauty and the human good. The next chapter discusses signs and God in the world. She states that humans are signs of God in this world.
Chapter nine begins the last part. It connects beauty with the good and explains how nonvirtuous people can see "the beauty of a good act." She believes that the "moral and the aesthetic orders are closely related" whoch causes how the unvirtuous can see beauty.Chapter ten covers "moral beauty and affective knowledge." She disagrees with the modern disconnection of beauty from ethics or morality. The last chapter covers art, beauty, and the human life. She disagrees with the relativizing of truth, beauty, and goodness. She believes beauty can connect us to truth and goodness.
The author does a good job in allowing us to explore the connections between truth, beauty, and goodness in Thomistic thought.
Tuesday, November 20, 2018
Satire in Love in the Ruins Part II
L. Lamar Nisly, "Percy's Edgy Satiric Fiction" in Wingless Chickens, Bayou Catholics, and Pilgrim Wayfarers: Constructions of Audience and Tone in O'Connor, Gautreaux, and Percy. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 2011.
The second target for Percy's satire in Love in the Ruins is scientism. The scientific community is prominent in the novel. This community and Dr More have "bought into the allure that science can provide all the needed answers" (170-171). Representative of the scientific community is the Love Clinic, in which "volunteers perform sexual acts singly, in couples, and in groups, beyond viewing mirrors in order that man might learn more about the human sexual response" (Ruins 12). They turn the sexual act into a scientific experiment that is observed by people in white coats observing their activities. The second facility is the Geriatrics Rehabilitation which is meant to treat older people "for the blues and boredoms of old age" (Ruins 12). They are reconditioned in Skinner boxes to help them to respond positively to their environment. Those who are unable to be rehabilitated is sent to the Happy Isles Separation Center, where if "thy misbehave antisocially they're shocked into bliss" (Ruins 103). Percy in describing these facilities is attacking "an attitude that suggests that humans are simply organisms to be studied and manipulated" (171). Percy often asserts in his writings that people are more than organisms in an environment. They actually transcend their environment. Both the Love Clinic and the Geriatric Rehabilitation facilities turn people into a "specimen." Dr. More is "bothered' by these facilities, but, nevertheless, "is himself guilty of scientism, for he believes that he can diagnose and, he hopes eventually, treat people's psychological disturbances by massaging the brain's electrical pulses with his lapsometer" (171). This purpose is helped by the appearance of a devil figure, Art Immelman, who provides an adapter for More's lapsometer which enables him to "manipulate people's brains" (171). More is enticed into a Faustian bargain. Percy shows Art to be the devil because he is able to perform small miracles and "wince when a person mentions God" (171). More seems to be trying to serve as a savior figure by saving everyone from what ails them. In other words, he is entrapped by scientism too. Nisly asserts, "Rather than offer an alternative to the Scientism he dislikes, Tom embodies another version of science as offering an ultimate answer" (171).
A third target is how white people have treated African-Americans in the South. The relationship between whites and blacks are prominent in this novel. The novel also presents much polarization in the society. He divides the society into Right, Left, and Militant Blacks. Percy offers extensive remarks on race relations in the novel. Nisly observes, "As the society has become more splintered, fear and misunderstandings become more prominent between blacks and whites as well" (171). Percy talks about white flight from public schools through the creation of Valley Forge Academy. This is actually a private school in Louisiana and it still exists. Percy comments on the school, "which was founded on religious and patriotic principles and to keep Negroes out" (Ruins 10). Nisly asserts, "By making explicit what was often only implicit, Percy's use of satire forces his readers to confront directly attitudes behind segregated private schools" (171-172). Percy assigns certain discomforts to the splinter groups: "Conservatives have begun to fall victim to unseasonable rages, delusions of conspiracies, high blood pressure, and large bowel complaints. Liberals are more apt to contract sexual impotence, morning terror, and a feeling of abstraction of the self from itself" (Ruins 17). Nisly thinks these discomforts points to the extreme anger these groups were experiencing. The humor in describing these groups allows these groups to be seen "afresh."
Percy also criticizes the Church generally, and the Roman Catholic Church particularly. Nisly thinks that a "kind of cultural Christianity is present throughout the novel, with Christian language particularly tied to Knothead issues" (172). For example, they make a big thing of a "golfaroma, a mystical idea of combining a week of golf on a Caribbean Island with the Greatest Pro of them all--a week of revivals conducted by a member of the Billy Graham team" (Ruins 39). However, a more pronounced rebuke is to the fracturing of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has split into three groups: "The American Catholic Church, which emphasizes property rights and the integrity of neighborhoods, retained the Latin mass and plays The Star Spangled Banner at the elevation;" then, there is the Dutch Schismatics, who allow priest to marry, divorce, and maybe, remarry; and last, there is the Roman Catholic remnant, "a tiny scattered flock with no place to go" (Ruins 5). Percy with this satire notes the lack of unity in the Roman Catholic Church. By saying that the American Catholic Church is more concerned about property rights than being faithful disciples to Jesus Christ, shows their lack of commitment. He seems also to talk about priest who have left the church by portraying a former preach who works at the love clinic "vaginal console--but read Commonweal while he is working.
Percy seems to "undercut" these four areas by satire to "point to a deeper commitment that Percy hopes to push his readers to make" (172). Nisly states that after this novel was published, that there was actually a sniped staked out at the Howard Johnson Hotel. Percy was asked by this event stated that it is not difficult to see the path where the country is going: "I mean, we all live in this century, and God is dead, we're told, and what you should believe in is in yourself, your potential, or your neighbor, his potential, or some social change and a few more discoveries" (Robert Coles, Walker Percy, 193). Percy is undercutting certain ideas through his satire so that "these efforts to find meaning apart from faith in God are ultimately doomed for failure" (173).
The second target for Percy's satire in Love in the Ruins is scientism. The scientific community is prominent in the novel. This community and Dr More have "bought into the allure that science can provide all the needed answers" (170-171). Representative of the scientific community is the Love Clinic, in which "volunteers perform sexual acts singly, in couples, and in groups, beyond viewing mirrors in order that man might learn more about the human sexual response" (Ruins 12). They turn the sexual act into a scientific experiment that is observed by people in white coats observing their activities. The second facility is the Geriatrics Rehabilitation which is meant to treat older people "for the blues and boredoms of old age" (Ruins 12). They are reconditioned in Skinner boxes to help them to respond positively to their environment. Those who are unable to be rehabilitated is sent to the Happy Isles Separation Center, where if "thy misbehave antisocially they're shocked into bliss" (Ruins 103). Percy in describing these facilities is attacking "an attitude that suggests that humans are simply organisms to be studied and manipulated" (171). Percy often asserts in his writings that people are more than organisms in an environment. They actually transcend their environment. Both the Love Clinic and the Geriatric Rehabilitation facilities turn people into a "specimen." Dr. More is "bothered' by these facilities, but, nevertheless, "is himself guilty of scientism, for he believes that he can diagnose and, he hopes eventually, treat people's psychological disturbances by massaging the brain's electrical pulses with his lapsometer" (171). This purpose is helped by the appearance of a devil figure, Art Immelman, who provides an adapter for More's lapsometer which enables him to "manipulate people's brains" (171). More is enticed into a Faustian bargain. Percy shows Art to be the devil because he is able to perform small miracles and "wince when a person mentions God" (171). More seems to be trying to serve as a savior figure by saving everyone from what ails them. In other words, he is entrapped by scientism too. Nisly asserts, "Rather than offer an alternative to the Scientism he dislikes, Tom embodies another version of science as offering an ultimate answer" (171).
A third target is how white people have treated African-Americans in the South. The relationship between whites and blacks are prominent in this novel. The novel also presents much polarization in the society. He divides the society into Right, Left, and Militant Blacks. Percy offers extensive remarks on race relations in the novel. Nisly observes, "As the society has become more splintered, fear and misunderstandings become more prominent between blacks and whites as well" (171). Percy talks about white flight from public schools through the creation of Valley Forge Academy. This is actually a private school in Louisiana and it still exists. Percy comments on the school, "which was founded on religious and patriotic principles and to keep Negroes out" (Ruins 10). Nisly asserts, "By making explicit what was often only implicit, Percy's use of satire forces his readers to confront directly attitudes behind segregated private schools" (171-172). Percy assigns certain discomforts to the splinter groups: "Conservatives have begun to fall victim to unseasonable rages, delusions of conspiracies, high blood pressure, and large bowel complaints. Liberals are more apt to contract sexual impotence, morning terror, and a feeling of abstraction of the self from itself" (Ruins 17). Nisly thinks these discomforts points to the extreme anger these groups were experiencing. The humor in describing these groups allows these groups to be seen "afresh."
Percy also criticizes the Church generally, and the Roman Catholic Church particularly. Nisly thinks that a "kind of cultural Christianity is present throughout the novel, with Christian language particularly tied to Knothead issues" (172). For example, they make a big thing of a "golfaroma, a mystical idea of combining a week of golf on a Caribbean Island with the Greatest Pro of them all--a week of revivals conducted by a member of the Billy Graham team" (Ruins 39). However, a more pronounced rebuke is to the fracturing of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has split into three groups: "The American Catholic Church, which emphasizes property rights and the integrity of neighborhoods, retained the Latin mass and plays The Star Spangled Banner at the elevation;" then, there is the Dutch Schismatics, who allow priest to marry, divorce, and maybe, remarry; and last, there is the Roman Catholic remnant, "a tiny scattered flock with no place to go" (Ruins 5). Percy with this satire notes the lack of unity in the Roman Catholic Church. By saying that the American Catholic Church is more concerned about property rights than being faithful disciples to Jesus Christ, shows their lack of commitment. He seems also to talk about priest who have left the church by portraying a former preach who works at the love clinic "vaginal console--but read Commonweal while he is working.
Percy seems to "undercut" these four areas by satire to "point to a deeper commitment that Percy hopes to push his readers to make" (172). Nisly states that after this novel was published, that there was actually a sniped staked out at the Howard Johnson Hotel. Percy was asked by this event stated that it is not difficult to see the path where the country is going: "I mean, we all live in this century, and God is dead, we're told, and what you should believe in is in yourself, your potential, or your neighbor, his potential, or some social change and a few more discoveries" (Robert Coles, Walker Percy, 193). Percy is undercutting certain ideas through his satire so that "these efforts to find meaning apart from faith in God are ultimately doomed for failure" (173).
Monday, November 19, 2018
Satire in Love in the Ruins Part I
L. Lamar Nisly, "Percy's Edgy Satiric Fiction" in Wingless Chickens, Bayou Catholics, and Pilgrim Wayfarers: Constructions of Audience and Tone in O'Connor, Gautreaux, and Percy. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 2011.
Tom More says about the United States in the future: "The Center did not hold" (LIR 16). There have been certain criticism about this novel. Rodney Allen describes the novel as "broad, highly topical humor and heavy-handed allusions" (William R. Allen 78). John Edward Hardy observes Percy's "exaggerations, distortions and oversimplifications" in the novel which includes characters that are "types of one sort and another--representatives of social or professional classes, absurd mouthpieces for prejudices and pernicious ideologies--rather than fully individualized human beings. But that is what characters in satire supposed to be" (John Edward Hardy 111). Martin Luschei thinks that the novel works as "comic therapy" because "there is a connection between humor and wholeness. Whose ox has not been gored in this book" (The Sovereign Wayfarer 231). Love in the Ruins is different from his first two novels, but Percy was trying to do something different. Percy did explore different ways to create in his writings. The novel does present Percy's satirical attacks against certain broad themes.
Nisly thinks Percy acts as a canary in Love in the Ruins to warn of a coming disaster. Percy asserts, "The novelist writes about the coming end in order to warn about present ills and so avert the end" (Message 101). Percy describes his approach in the novel: "Increase the polarization, increase the mannerism or the psychic upsets, the anxieties of the liberals and the constipation of the conservatives. You know, that's really the business of the satirist and the futurist: to exaggerate so that things will become more noticeable" (CWP 45). In the novel, Dr. Tom More understands that his "society" is coming apart by noticing the "vines sprouting everywhere and people divided among the Lefts (liberals), Knotheads (conservatives), and Bantus (militant blacks)" (170). As More awaits the end of the world, he prepares three rooms in the abandoned Howard Johnson for three women who he loves. These three women symbolize various responses to the 'Chaos." Lola with her land and her big house represents the old Southern way of life; "Moira, who works at the Love Clinic, seems to represent an etheral sexual presence;" (170) Ellen is a Presbyterian is interested in doing right more than believing in God. She seems to stand as a contrast to the "craziness" around her. The main protagonist, Dr. More is tempted to make a Faustian bargain with the devil for the success of his lapsometer. It can diagnose the patient, but not yet cure the patient. He wants to win the Nobel Prize for his invention. He is tempted to sign over his invention to Art Immelman, the devil character, in exchange for funding his project.
There are several satirical attacks in this novel The attack against Southern Stoicism is not as prominent in this novel compared to other novels. Instead of having a particular character representing Southern Stoicism, he shows the emptiness of the Southern way of life as represented by Dusty Rhodes and his daughter, Lola. She tells Tom, "When all is said and done, the only thing we can be sure of is the land. The land will never let you down" (LIR 238). Tom verbally agrees with her,but in his mind he acknowledges, that "I never knew what that meant" (LIR 238). Lola represents a return to the old Southern ways with a stratified society with the need to protect "Southern womanhood" (170). Percy seems to be satirizing this nostalgic idea of returning to a former time. The next post will look at the target of scientism in Love in the Ruins.
Tom More says about the United States in the future: "The Center did not hold" (LIR 16). There have been certain criticism about this novel. Rodney Allen describes the novel as "broad, highly topical humor and heavy-handed allusions" (William R. Allen 78). John Edward Hardy observes Percy's "exaggerations, distortions and oversimplifications" in the novel which includes characters that are "types of one sort and another--representatives of social or professional classes, absurd mouthpieces for prejudices and pernicious ideologies--rather than fully individualized human beings. But that is what characters in satire supposed to be" (John Edward Hardy 111). Martin Luschei thinks that the novel works as "comic therapy" because "there is a connection between humor and wholeness. Whose ox has not been gored in this book" (The Sovereign Wayfarer 231). Love in the Ruins is different from his first two novels, but Percy was trying to do something different. Percy did explore different ways to create in his writings. The novel does present Percy's satirical attacks against certain broad themes.
Nisly thinks Percy acts as a canary in Love in the Ruins to warn of a coming disaster. Percy asserts, "The novelist writes about the coming end in order to warn about present ills and so avert the end" (Message 101). Percy describes his approach in the novel: "Increase the polarization, increase the mannerism or the psychic upsets, the anxieties of the liberals and the constipation of the conservatives. You know, that's really the business of the satirist and the futurist: to exaggerate so that things will become more noticeable" (CWP 45). In the novel, Dr. Tom More understands that his "society" is coming apart by noticing the "vines sprouting everywhere and people divided among the Lefts (liberals), Knotheads (conservatives), and Bantus (militant blacks)" (170). As More awaits the end of the world, he prepares three rooms in the abandoned Howard Johnson for three women who he loves. These three women symbolize various responses to the 'Chaos." Lola with her land and her big house represents the old Southern way of life; "Moira, who works at the Love Clinic, seems to represent an etheral sexual presence;" (170) Ellen is a Presbyterian is interested in doing right more than believing in God. She seems to stand as a contrast to the "craziness" around her. The main protagonist, Dr. More is tempted to make a Faustian bargain with the devil for the success of his lapsometer. It can diagnose the patient, but not yet cure the patient. He wants to win the Nobel Prize for his invention. He is tempted to sign over his invention to Art Immelman, the devil character, in exchange for funding his project.
There are several satirical attacks in this novel The attack against Southern Stoicism is not as prominent in this novel compared to other novels. Instead of having a particular character representing Southern Stoicism, he shows the emptiness of the Southern way of life as represented by Dusty Rhodes and his daughter, Lola. She tells Tom, "When all is said and done, the only thing we can be sure of is the land. The land will never let you down" (LIR 238). Tom verbally agrees with her,but in his mind he acknowledges, that "I never knew what that meant" (LIR 238). Lola represents a return to the old Southern ways with a stratified society with the need to protect "Southern womanhood" (170). Percy seems to be satirizing this nostalgic idea of returning to a former time. The next post will look at the target of scientism in Love in the Ruins.
Percy's Satiric Targets Part II
L. Lamar Nisly, "Percy's Edgy Satiric Fiction" in Wingless Chickens, Bayou Catholics, and Pilgrim Wayfarers: Constructions of Audience and Tone in O'Connor, Gautreaux, and Percy. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 2011.
Walker Percy had four broad satiric targets in his writing: Southern Stoicism, scientism, excesses in society, and the Church. The previous post covered Southern Stoicism. This post will cover the other three.
Percy's second satiric target was scientism. This is a target in a majority of Percy's writing. It is a theme that occurs again and again. Percy was a supporter of science and the scientific method, but he was a critic of scientism. Scientism is when science refuses to acknowledge its limitations and argues it has a monopoly on all knowledge. Percy believed that "a kind of idolatry develops when people assume that science can answer the most foundational questions" (164). Percy, in his own life found that science was limited in fundamental questions, that it could cot provide ultimate meaning. Percy learned out the limits of science from his own journey. He became aware "that there was a huge gap in the scientific view of the world. This sector of the world about which science could not utter a single word was nothing less than this: what it is like to be an individual living in the United States in the twentieth century" (SSL 213). Science could only compare things with other things. It could not speak to the condition of the individual person.
A third area for Percy's attack was the "excesses" he saw in the "larger society." Percy spoke out often against abortion and euthanasia. He wrote an op-ed piece against abortion which the New York Times refused to publish. Percy was interested in other issues: war, capital punishment, poverty, racism. Percy stated that being pro-life was more than just being against abortion. He asserted, "you're prolife wherever life is threatened, not just in the case of abortion" (MCWP 121). Percy also satirized the sexual revolution in Lost in the Cosmos.
The last area of satirical attack was issues in the Church. Percy critiques the Church in the South:
The triumphant Christendom of the Sunbelt creates problems for the Southern novelist,
whether he is a believer or unbeliever. If he is an unbeliever, he may feel like attacking it,
but he really doesn't have the heart. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Who needs another
Elmer Gantry?
If he is a believer, he is in a different kind of trouble. He finds himself in bed with the
wrong bedfellows. What makes it difficult for him is that they are proclaiming the same
good news he believes in, using the same noble biblical words, speaking of the same
treasure buried in the field, but somehow devaluing it. If these are the fellows who have
found the treasure buried in the field, then what manner of treasure is it? (SSL 180).
Percy thought that Christianity as practiced by modern Christians problematic because of the :failure of love" towards African-Americans and other minority groups. He also saw the Church as failing to be a light and a "voice of love and hope to an unbelieving world" (166).
Satirical attacks against four broad themes is prominent in the writings of Walker Percy: Southern Stoicism, scientism, the world and the Church. He sees these problems point to a deeper problem, a separation or absence of a relationship with God. Percy attacks these things to point people to a relationship with the transcendent (God).
Walker Percy had four broad satiric targets in his writing: Southern Stoicism, scientism, excesses in society, and the Church. The previous post covered Southern Stoicism. This post will cover the other three.
Percy's second satiric target was scientism. This is a target in a majority of Percy's writing. It is a theme that occurs again and again. Percy was a supporter of science and the scientific method, but he was a critic of scientism. Scientism is when science refuses to acknowledge its limitations and argues it has a monopoly on all knowledge. Percy believed that "a kind of idolatry develops when people assume that science can answer the most foundational questions" (164). Percy, in his own life found that science was limited in fundamental questions, that it could cot provide ultimate meaning. Percy learned out the limits of science from his own journey. He became aware "that there was a huge gap in the scientific view of the world. This sector of the world about which science could not utter a single word was nothing less than this: what it is like to be an individual living in the United States in the twentieth century" (SSL 213). Science could only compare things with other things. It could not speak to the condition of the individual person.
A third area for Percy's attack was the "excesses" he saw in the "larger society." Percy spoke out often against abortion and euthanasia. He wrote an op-ed piece against abortion which the New York Times refused to publish. Percy was interested in other issues: war, capital punishment, poverty, racism. Percy stated that being pro-life was more than just being against abortion. He asserted, "you're prolife wherever life is threatened, not just in the case of abortion" (MCWP 121). Percy also satirized the sexual revolution in Lost in the Cosmos.
The last area of satirical attack was issues in the Church. Percy critiques the Church in the South:
The triumphant Christendom of the Sunbelt creates problems for the Southern novelist,
whether he is a believer or unbeliever. If he is an unbeliever, he may feel like attacking it,
but he really doesn't have the heart. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Who needs another
Elmer Gantry?
If he is a believer, he is in a different kind of trouble. He finds himself in bed with the
wrong bedfellows. What makes it difficult for him is that they are proclaiming the same
good news he believes in, using the same noble biblical words, speaking of the same
treasure buried in the field, but somehow devaluing it. If these are the fellows who have
found the treasure buried in the field, then what manner of treasure is it? (SSL 180).
Percy thought that Christianity as practiced by modern Christians problematic because of the :failure of love" towards African-Americans and other minority groups. He also saw the Church as failing to be a light and a "voice of love and hope to an unbelieving world" (166).
Satirical attacks against four broad themes is prominent in the writings of Walker Percy: Southern Stoicism, scientism, the world and the Church. He sees these problems point to a deeper problem, a separation or absence of a relationship with God. Percy attacks these things to point people to a relationship with the transcendent (God).
Thursday, November 15, 2018
"Percy's Satiric Targets" Part I
L. Lamar Nisly, "Percy's Edgy Satiric Fiction" in Wingless Chickens, Bayou Catholics, and Pilgrim Wayfarers: Constructions of Audience and Tone in O'Connor, Gautreaux, and Percy. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 2011.
Percy used and satire and the indirect approach because he thought the direct method would not succeed. Nisly asserts, "An important impetus behind his use of indirection, I believe, is his belief that the religious establishment has largely emptied the Christian Language of meaning through overuse and abuse of these terms" (162-163). For example, words like sin, repentance, and salvation. Percy observes, "it's almost impossible for a novelist because you have to use standard words like 'God' and 'salvation' and 'baptism,' 'faith,' and the words are pretty well used up" (CWP 41). Lewis Lawson wrote about Percy's first two novels that Percy's audience was religious, it required him to use "indirect communication" to attract the readers in the aesthetic stage and then--"without ever directly discussing religion or lapsing into a serious tone--attack their religious illusions from behind" (Following Percy 6). Percy's method seems similar to Kierkegaard.
Nisly asks the question, how can we say that Percy's method is indirect when many critics have claimed that his later novels "contain overt attacks on societal ills?" (163). One must remember Percy's purpose in his writing. He is attacking problems in society to point to a greater need, an absence of God. Percy argues, "It becomes possible, whether one believes in God or not, soul or not, to agree in an age in which the self is not informed by cosmological myths, by totemism, by belief in God--whether the God of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam--it must necessarily and by reason of its own semiotic nature be informed by something else" (Lost in the Cosmos 178). Percy believes that everyone "must believe in something, even if it is not God" (163). A common strategy of Percy is to attack substitutes for belief in God for the purpose of pointing to God. Percy often said that the novelist is one of the few pointing to original sin. Percy asks, "Is it too much to say that the novelist, unlike the new theologian, is one of the few remaining witnesses to the doctrine of original sin, the imminence of catastrophe in paradise" (MB 106). It is questionable that all novelists are "witnesses" of original sin, but it is true of Percy. Percy is pointing out the problems in society, exploring the darkness of sin in the modern world.Percy thinks that it is the novelist's vocation "to explore the darker recesses of the human heart, there to name the strange admixture of good and evil, the action of the demonic, the action of grace, of courage and cowardice and vice versa; in a word, the strange human creature himself" (SSL 36). Since humans cannot find true fulfillment without believing in God, Percy "satirically exposes, undercuts, and indicts elements of American culture that humans turn to in place of belief in God" (164).
Nisly points out four satiric themes observed in Percy's fiction. The first target is Southern Stoicism. This is a part of the view of the Southern Aristocracy as modeled by Percy's Uncle Will. Percy thought that Southern Stoicism had a bigger influence on the South than Christianity. Percy asserts, "how curiously foreign to the South sound the Decalogue, the Beatitudes, the doctrine of the Mystical Body. The South's virtues were the broadsword virtues of the clan, as were her vices, too--the hubris of the noblesse gone arrogant" (SSL 84). Percy often points out how the Southerner treated the African American. Percy argues that the "Stoical attitude" made an inner call "to duty, to honor, to generosity to his fellow men and above all to his inferiors--not because they were made in the image of God and were therefore lovable in themselves, but because to do them an injustice would be to defile the inner fortress which was oneself" (SSL 85). Percy experienced the emptiness of Southern Stoicism through his relationship with his father and his Uncle Will. He used satire to pinpoint the weaknesses of Southern Stoicism throughout his fiction. We will look at the three other themes for satire in the next post.
Percy used and satire and the indirect approach because he thought the direct method would not succeed. Nisly asserts, "An important impetus behind his use of indirection, I believe, is his belief that the religious establishment has largely emptied the Christian Language of meaning through overuse and abuse of these terms" (162-163). For example, words like sin, repentance, and salvation. Percy observes, "it's almost impossible for a novelist because you have to use standard words like 'God' and 'salvation' and 'baptism,' 'faith,' and the words are pretty well used up" (CWP 41). Lewis Lawson wrote about Percy's first two novels that Percy's audience was religious, it required him to use "indirect communication" to attract the readers in the aesthetic stage and then--"without ever directly discussing religion or lapsing into a serious tone--attack their religious illusions from behind" (Following Percy 6). Percy's method seems similar to Kierkegaard.
Nisly asks the question, how can we say that Percy's method is indirect when many critics have claimed that his later novels "contain overt attacks on societal ills?" (163). One must remember Percy's purpose in his writing. He is attacking problems in society to point to a greater need, an absence of God. Percy argues, "It becomes possible, whether one believes in God or not, soul or not, to agree in an age in which the self is not informed by cosmological myths, by totemism, by belief in God--whether the God of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam--it must necessarily and by reason of its own semiotic nature be informed by something else" (Lost in the Cosmos 178). Percy believes that everyone "must believe in something, even if it is not God" (163). A common strategy of Percy is to attack substitutes for belief in God for the purpose of pointing to God. Percy often said that the novelist is one of the few pointing to original sin. Percy asks, "Is it too much to say that the novelist, unlike the new theologian, is one of the few remaining witnesses to the doctrine of original sin, the imminence of catastrophe in paradise" (MB 106). It is questionable that all novelists are "witnesses" of original sin, but it is true of Percy. Percy is pointing out the problems in society, exploring the darkness of sin in the modern world.Percy thinks that it is the novelist's vocation "to explore the darker recesses of the human heart, there to name the strange admixture of good and evil, the action of the demonic, the action of grace, of courage and cowardice and vice versa; in a word, the strange human creature himself" (SSL 36). Since humans cannot find true fulfillment without believing in God, Percy "satirically exposes, undercuts, and indicts elements of American culture that humans turn to in place of belief in God" (164).
Nisly points out four satiric themes observed in Percy's fiction. The first target is Southern Stoicism. This is a part of the view of the Southern Aristocracy as modeled by Percy's Uncle Will. Percy thought that Southern Stoicism had a bigger influence on the South than Christianity. Percy asserts, "how curiously foreign to the South sound the Decalogue, the Beatitudes, the doctrine of the Mystical Body. The South's virtues were the broadsword virtues of the clan, as were her vices, too--the hubris of the noblesse gone arrogant" (SSL 84). Percy often points out how the Southerner treated the African American. Percy argues that the "Stoical attitude" made an inner call "to duty, to honor, to generosity to his fellow men and above all to his inferiors--not because they were made in the image of God and were therefore lovable in themselves, but because to do them an injustice would be to defile the inner fortress which was oneself" (SSL 85). Percy experienced the emptiness of Southern Stoicism through his relationship with his father and his Uncle Will. He used satire to pinpoint the weaknesses of Southern Stoicism throughout his fiction. We will look at the three other themes for satire in the next post.
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
Walker Percy's Malicious Writing
L. Lamar Nisly, "Percy's Edgy Satiric Fiction" in Wingless Chickens, Bayou Catholics, and Pilgrim Wayfarers: Constructions of Audience and Tone in O'Connor, Gautreaux, and Percy. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 2011.
People are not usually "neutral" about Percy's writing. In regards to The Moviegoer, he stated, "They either like it and identify with it immediately, or they are repelled. As well as might be, since is the book is mainly an assault" (CWP 6). Percy means that they are attacking certain things that he sees is wrong. The Moviegoer and The Last Gentleman have a milder tone than his later novels. Percy often described how his writing is motivated out of disgust or animosity. He wrote to Shelby Foote, "Sometimes I think the creative urge comes from malice--a strong desire to attack one's enemies or at least those in the culture one considers to be wrong-headed and injurious--from one's own malice, envy, pride, and other capital sins" (Correspondence of Percy with Foote 128-129). This statement implies a critique of others and himself. In regards to his tone, he "laughs to Foote that Percy's wife Bunt agreed with a reviewer of Love in the Ruins that 'I am a smart ass!' (160)." Percy also remarks that Robert Cole's assessment of himself makes him look too good: "I feel a good deal more malevolent, oblique, phony, ironical, and, I hope, more entertaining" (CSFAP 251).
Nisly thinks even if "Percy's fiction is often humorous, derisive, and hard to pin down, the reader must never lose sight of the larger affirmation that Percy is making" (161). Percy observed about his writing, "I'm always writing on the narrow edge between psychosis and neurosis and 'the norm.' My characters always have something apparently wrong with them and apparently they are living in a 'normal' world. The question is always that delicate balance: who is crazy and who is not? Who is right? The inkling is that the so-called neurotic or crazy person is on to something that 'normal' people are not" (MCWP 55). Nisly believes this focusing on his method "is one that resists simple univocal reading" (161; Walker Percy's Voices 20), because when he undermines a character he "may also be affirming some aspect that he or she represents." Because of Percy's levels of discourse it is often hard to pinpoint the exact meaning of the text. Percy's satire is ultimately life-affirming. His end is to build up after tearing down, especially, on better foundations. Percy's satire is "always launched in the mode of hope" (161).
People are not usually "neutral" about Percy's writing. In regards to The Moviegoer, he stated, "They either like it and identify with it immediately, or they are repelled. As well as might be, since is the book is mainly an assault" (CWP 6). Percy means that they are attacking certain things that he sees is wrong. The Moviegoer and The Last Gentleman have a milder tone than his later novels. Percy often described how his writing is motivated out of disgust or animosity. He wrote to Shelby Foote, "Sometimes I think the creative urge comes from malice--a strong desire to attack one's enemies or at least those in the culture one considers to be wrong-headed and injurious--from one's own malice, envy, pride, and other capital sins" (Correspondence of Percy with Foote 128-129). This statement implies a critique of others and himself. In regards to his tone, he "laughs to Foote that Percy's wife Bunt agreed with a reviewer of Love in the Ruins that 'I am a smart ass!' (160)." Percy also remarks that Robert Cole's assessment of himself makes him look too good: "I feel a good deal more malevolent, oblique, phony, ironical, and, I hope, more entertaining" (CSFAP 251).
Nisly thinks even if "Percy's fiction is often humorous, derisive, and hard to pin down, the reader must never lose sight of the larger affirmation that Percy is making" (161). Percy observed about his writing, "I'm always writing on the narrow edge between psychosis and neurosis and 'the norm.' My characters always have something apparently wrong with them and apparently they are living in a 'normal' world. The question is always that delicate balance: who is crazy and who is not? Who is right? The inkling is that the so-called neurotic or crazy person is on to something that 'normal' people are not" (MCWP 55). Nisly believes this focusing on his method "is one that resists simple univocal reading" (161; Walker Percy's Voices 20), because when he undermines a character he "may also be affirming some aspect that he or she represents." Because of Percy's levels of discourse it is often hard to pinpoint the exact meaning of the text. Percy's satire is ultimately life-affirming. His end is to build up after tearing down, especially, on better foundations. Percy's satire is "always launched in the mode of hope" (161).
Tuesday, November 13, 2018
Walker Percy's use of Satire
L. Lamar Nisly, "Percy's Edgy Satiric Fiction" in Wingless Chickens, Bayou Catholics, and Pilgrim Wayfarers: Constructions of Audience and Tone in O'Connor, Gautreaux, and Percy. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 2011.
Nisly asserts, "Percy's novels are, at times, wacky and over-the-top and potentially offensive--engaging in a kind of broad satiric comedy. At the same time, the stance from which Percy is writing is also from the edge, since his plaintive--and sometimes frantic--canary cries point out all areas in need of correction that he observes from his stance on the margins" (159). I have noticed or observed Percy to be a person on the margins of different communities: Church, Covington, the South, American culture, the Academy. Percy, even after conversion continued living as a wayfarer. This is why many readers feel drawn to his work. In addition, he is a satirical writer. He pokes fun at many modern theories in his writings, scientism, materialism, secularism.
Percy's purpose for his satirical writing is to produce change in his reader. Some reviewers have criticized Percy for being to harsh in his criticism, but it is important to keep in mind his purpose for his satirical wring. Percy sees himself as "life-affirming," but "before life can be affirmed for the novelist or his readers, death-in-life must be named." Pointing out this death-in-life is, Percy asserts, "a thousand times more life-affirming than all the life-affirming self-help books about me being okay and you being okay and everybody being okay, but more likely in deep trouble" (SSL 164). Percy points out the troubles in the world to wake up his reader from the the "malaise" and "everydayness" and to begin a search for real life.
Percy thinks religious language is worn out, so he can not speak directly about the Christian faith that "motivates his writing" (159). Nisly compares O'Connor's approach with Percy's: "In contrast to O'Connor, who often directly attacked unbelief in her fiction..., Percy's satiric approach, I believe, is his effort to engage indirectly his reader's spiritual malaise" (159-160). Percy's malaise is like Kierkegaard's despair without knowing one is in despair. One is dead, but does not know it. Percy is "distressed about the disbelief he sees around him, but he generally invokes this spiritual concern more obliquely through his dire criticisms of societal wrongs"(160). He see these wrongs as symptoms of larger problems. He thinks they point to spiritual issues. Nisly thinks that there are four basic targets for his satire in his novels: "his critique of southern Stoicism, his repudiation of Scientism, his condemnation of societal ills, and his criticism of the Church's failings" (160). These themes do appear in the early novels, but they are more prominent in his later novels, beginning with Love in the Ruins. It does not seem to be prominent in his Second Coming. Nisly asserts that "Percy also targets those characters who seem to represent his own positions, satirizing the moralists themselves" (160).
Nisly asserts, "Percy's novels are, at times, wacky and over-the-top and potentially offensive--engaging in a kind of broad satiric comedy. At the same time, the stance from which Percy is writing is also from the edge, since his plaintive--and sometimes frantic--canary cries point out all areas in need of correction that he observes from his stance on the margins" (159). I have noticed or observed Percy to be a person on the margins of different communities: Church, Covington, the South, American culture, the Academy. Percy, even after conversion continued living as a wayfarer. This is why many readers feel drawn to his work. In addition, he is a satirical writer. He pokes fun at many modern theories in his writings, scientism, materialism, secularism.
Percy's purpose for his satirical writing is to produce change in his reader. Some reviewers have criticized Percy for being to harsh in his criticism, but it is important to keep in mind his purpose for his satirical wring. Percy sees himself as "life-affirming," but "before life can be affirmed for the novelist or his readers, death-in-life must be named." Pointing out this death-in-life is, Percy asserts, "a thousand times more life-affirming than all the life-affirming self-help books about me being okay and you being okay and everybody being okay, but more likely in deep trouble" (SSL 164). Percy points out the troubles in the world to wake up his reader from the the "malaise" and "everydayness" and to begin a search for real life.
Percy thinks religious language is worn out, so he can not speak directly about the Christian faith that "motivates his writing" (159). Nisly compares O'Connor's approach with Percy's: "In contrast to O'Connor, who often directly attacked unbelief in her fiction..., Percy's satiric approach, I believe, is his effort to engage indirectly his reader's spiritual malaise" (159-160). Percy's malaise is like Kierkegaard's despair without knowing one is in despair. One is dead, but does not know it. Percy is "distressed about the disbelief he sees around him, but he generally invokes this spiritual concern more obliquely through his dire criticisms of societal wrongs"(160). He see these wrongs as symptoms of larger problems. He thinks they point to spiritual issues. Nisly thinks that there are four basic targets for his satire in his novels: "his critique of southern Stoicism, his repudiation of Scientism, his condemnation of societal ills, and his criticism of the Church's failings" (160). These themes do appear in the early novels, but they are more prominent in his later novels, beginning with Love in the Ruins. It does not seem to be prominent in his Second Coming. Nisly asserts that "Percy also targets those characters who seem to represent his own positions, satirizing the moralists themselves" (160).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)