Why do we assume romanticism is out to cure something? Isn't this the same criticism Arnold leveled against it? If the goal is to heal, is it the world or the self?
Check out Frank Lentricchia's Crimes of Art and Terror. Beautiful book. Reads Wordsworth and Ted K and Conrad (didn't they find The Secret Agent in the cabin) all together (among others: Melville, Scorsese, Cassettes, Mann, etc). Argues that all post-romantic visionary art is apocalyptic.
Characteristically vital work, Udith. I'm interested in how you position Lewis in relation to your recent remarks about action (here and in 'Poetry in Motion'). Lewis was deeply critical of 'the gospel of action'. Nor did he think all forms of artistic genius are founded on 'the agent-principle'. Of Shakespeare, he claimed that 'the character of his genius was responsive and not active'. Inaction is not, in every case, a matter of despondency. Or perhaps we should say that, in the highest forms of inaction (i.e. the vita contemplativa), the very distinction between activity and passivity dissolves.
He was definitely opposed to action, but in my opinion only through a detour of his own former indulgence towards it- at least on the philosophical and aesthetic sense, I think in 'Tarr' the character of Kreisler is sympathetic in comparison to other the bourgeois bohemians, as an atavistic type which the protagonist (and perhaps Lewis) 'on the whole prefers', but when we look to his late novels such as The Vulgar Streak, which I think is a mea-culpa for his fascistic past, we have a distinctly polemic opposition to 'action' as the principle element of Fascism, described as an excess of 'Empty Will', which cannot do other than tear itself apart. It certainly isn't always a matter of despondency, of course.
Yes, there’s definitely an ambivalence there. It is also worth noting that he articulated his polemical opposition to action (including a critique of the Marinettean cult of action in Italian fascism) in the 1920s, before he engaged with Nazism. And his ambivalence about action is already apparent in Enemy of the Stars. Arghol’s ascetic refusal of action is related to his nobility, but it leaves him vulnerable to Hanp’s unthinking violence.
Kaczynski saw technology as the final progeny of a certain kind of political order which finally turned around and merged with that order. he explained technology as a societal practice, which it obviously is and thus necessarily linked with the political conditions. he is clearly more advanced and closer to being right than ellul. separating technic from technology can only be a semantic game, it makes technology into an alien force or a kind of superstition. this is idealistic sophistry which can only escape the political reality on paper. whatever his faults, kaczynski doesn't flee from conclusions of his own investigation. he sees the issue dialectically in contrast to ellul who is hopelessly idealistic and practically, useless.
kaczynski's "industrial society" is really a strange text but strange in what respects? it is at the same time about technology as a social force and the personality of "liberal" academics in the american universities with whom kaczynski were very familiar. if you understand technology as a social and thus political force, you can also appreciate the connection between the nature of that impersonal force and the thoughts and behaviors of the people who actually build it. people who are so mercilessly critiqued by kaczynski were also the people who produced the knowledge necessary for the so called industrial society. the connection between them is not arbitrary and such an investigation might be actually necessary.
Why do we assume romanticism is out to cure something? Isn't this the same criticism Arnold leveled against it? If the goal is to heal, is it the world or the self?
Check out Frank Lentricchia's Crimes of Art and Terror. Beautiful book. Reads Wordsworth and Ted K and Conrad (didn't they find The Secret Agent in the cabin) all together (among others: Melville, Scorsese, Cassettes, Mann, etc). Argues that all post-romantic visionary art is apocalyptic.
Wordsworth and Ted K? Beautiful. He takes, I hope, a pro-terror—in the sense of sublimity—stance.
Characteristically vital work, Udith. I'm interested in how you position Lewis in relation to your recent remarks about action (here and in 'Poetry in Motion'). Lewis was deeply critical of 'the gospel of action'. Nor did he think all forms of artistic genius are founded on 'the agent-principle'. Of Shakespeare, he claimed that 'the character of his genius was responsive and not active'. Inaction is not, in every case, a matter of despondency. Or perhaps we should say that, in the highest forms of inaction (i.e. the vita contemplativa), the very distinction between activity and passivity dissolves.
He was definitely opposed to action, but in my opinion only through a detour of his own former indulgence towards it- at least on the philosophical and aesthetic sense, I think in 'Tarr' the character of Kreisler is sympathetic in comparison to other the bourgeois bohemians, as an atavistic type which the protagonist (and perhaps Lewis) 'on the whole prefers', but when we look to his late novels such as The Vulgar Streak, which I think is a mea-culpa for his fascistic past, we have a distinctly polemic opposition to 'action' as the principle element of Fascism, described as an excess of 'Empty Will', which cannot do other than tear itself apart. It certainly isn't always a matter of despondency, of course.
Yes, there’s definitely an ambivalence there. It is also worth noting that he articulated his polemical opposition to action (including a critique of the Marinettean cult of action in Italian fascism) in the 1920s, before he engaged with Nazism. And his ambivalence about action is already apparent in Enemy of the Stars. Arghol’s ascetic refusal of action is related to his nobility, but it leaves him vulnerable to Hanp’s unthinking violence.
Joseph Conrad, FTW. Well done, thank you much. +1
Kaczynski saw technology as the final progeny of a certain kind of political order which finally turned around and merged with that order. he explained technology as a societal practice, which it obviously is and thus necessarily linked with the political conditions. he is clearly more advanced and closer to being right than ellul. separating technic from technology can only be a semantic game, it makes technology into an alien force or a kind of superstition. this is idealistic sophistry which can only escape the political reality on paper. whatever his faults, kaczynski doesn't flee from conclusions of his own investigation. he sees the issue dialectically in contrast to ellul who is hopelessly idealistic and practically, useless.
kaczynski's "industrial society" is really a strange text but strange in what respects? it is at the same time about technology as a social force and the personality of "liberal" academics in the american universities with whom kaczynski were very familiar. if you understand technology as a social and thus political force, you can also appreciate the connection between the nature of that impersonal force and the thoughts and behaviors of the people who actually build it. people who are so mercilessly critiqued by kaczynski were also the people who produced the knowledge necessary for the so called industrial society. the connection between them is not arbitrary and such an investigation might be actually necessary.