Date: 27 Jul 92 05:39:11 GMT
From: wojdylo@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (INFIDEL)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: the address of the dead josef





Due to a change in location, I am posting this reply to Mike Morris's post of
Thursday July 23 from a colleague's account.  Since the computer here seems to 
be suffering from slow newsfeed,  I`ve been forced to follow-up to a previous
post of mine. The authenticity of this post will be obvious .


Mike Morris writes:

	John, I'm feeling pretty thick about here. I don't understand 
	whether you are telling me I've got something important wrong, or right.


In other words, what have we been discussing? Well, Mike, it all started with 
the following exchange:

	MM:
	Fuck, fuck, o fuckety fuck... Come now, John. Naphtha and Little 
	Septembers both remembered. I liked Septembers, too. It was Mann who 
	didn't. Moral fiction? I'm not convinced.

	JW:
		>I liked Septembers too. It was Mann who didn't.
	I disagree. I think he did.

	MM:
	OK, John. I confess: I was free associating at approximately random and 	threw this in... I'd really like to hear how you read it.


Although Mann did find some of Settembrini's habits amusing (poking fun at the 
Italian on at least two occasions),  he admired him on the most important count:even though Settembrini was the intellectual equal of Naptha, he still valued
the "human foibles" of pity and sympathy; of certain irrational things. This
was in contrast to Naphtha who sought the destruction of all things 
- everything; and moral anarchy - so as to bring about his "beautiful new 
world".  This position -- the admiration of distant, unreachable peaks, that
denies humanity, that loves places where there are no humans -- Mann concluded,
is unworkable, so Naphtha took the only possible option: he shot himself in the head.  He was placed in this position by an irrational act -- an act of human
fallibility:  Settembrini sacrificing himself.  I would say that Mann's view
of Settembrini is quite favourable  (despite Naphtha probably having arisen in 
his mind earlier in the formulation of the novel), contrary to Mr. Morris's
assertions.  Recall that the late 10's early 20's was a time when the "promise
of Marxism " first seemed to become realizable; so those with doubts about the 
capitalist state were enchanted with its possibilities -- Mann was one of these
intellectuals.

To answer a further query of Mr Morris's,  I do believe that he has something
important wrong: it is his identification of all forms of absolute power
as being equally evil.  Settembrini firing a pistol into the head of 
Rochefoucault  in the name of Justice is as evil as a Marxist/Leninist
shooting a round into the squalid brain of Nicholas II, or a hypothetical
Jewish scum in 1929 firing into the pretty head of Adolf Hitler, following 
publication of that inspiring work, _Mein Kampf_, thereby averting World War 2 
and the loss of 60 million lives.

Aside:

It's part and parcel of the Joycean view of fiction, that one ought to live
and let live, and not try to influence others in a moral way -- even if only to
be true to oneself, against those impinging on one's own world.  Fine as long 
as one lives in a utopia. Or as a hermit. Or if one knows that one's book will 
be read by a hermit or in a Utopian society.  It's possible to read, seriously, Joyce's cleverness -- immense dexterity at language etc. -- and find it means 
very little.   Can it be damaging? (How on earth can something pretty to look 
at be damaging?) Simple:   become a disciple of Joyce and live and let live --
everything is beautiful, even Mein Kampf.  So the lessons of the 20'th
century are forgotten.

Joyce made at least one valuable contribution: he made it plain that most of 
what's interesting in modern life is what happens inside one's head.  Fine.
Now go watch any film by Andre Tarkovsky to see how this idea is dealt with in 
a moral way; leading, of course, to darkness, fear etc. and little hope for the world. Still, that's a trip that has to be made, according to this view -- 
dodging the pain contributes to the problem, rather than help solve it. 

End of aside.


	JW:
	Reader A: "He wished a position of influence so that he could realize
	his vision of moral anarchy, ...for his new world that'd enslave all of 	us. Good riddance. May he burn in hell."

	MM:
	There is indeed more than one path to slavery. "May he burn in hell" 
	betrays you (Reader A).

Indeed there is more than one path to slavery. Reader A had just watched Stalin
die. Good riddance , he thought. He'd felt pity, but why should remorse make anything more of the loss of a human being than Stalin was worth?  Fuck him.
Remember how he arrived at his position; how he's in all of us.


jw

--
Tom Osborn,                                   " As  simple  as  possible,
School of Computing Sciences,                       but  not  more  so  ! "
University of Technology, Sydney,        
PO Box 123 Broadway 2007,  AUSTRALIA.             
Xref: sparky rec.arts.books:13512 rec.humor:24953 talk.religion.misc:13093 sci.skeptic:13437 alt.atheism:14657