As Arnold mentions in a bit of this I've excised, we met over a delightful lunch not long ago, good food and the wonderful (and warming) conversation of friends old and new.
In his response to my posting, Arnold (though somewhat demystified in my eyes by meeting him face to face) speaks beautifully to several issues that I think are central to the group of ideas I am trying to develop. [...]
I also apologize for not being able to put all of my thoughts into such an order as to make them clear and easily understood by all. One of the problems is probably a want of clarity in my own mind; as usual, I expect to be forgiven for that, because I'm doing the best I can in my usual intuitive fashion, under the circumstances.
Arnold Zwicky writes: my heart froze over at much of what i've skimmed through.
Such a powerful image, really, and quite literally the same one that prompted me to begin this effort at looking into things more deeply.
so much nastiness at home. it's like after-midnight at one of those parties that go sour as friends and lovers rake up old grievances while sullenly defending every action they've taken and every word they've said to one another; if they keep at it long enough, they'll all reveal some hidden bits of themselves that frighten and appall the rest of the party.
This too seems particularly apt. I lived for quite some time with an alcoholic lover, and many festive evenings together with friends ended with the bitterest possible acrimony at home, for when lightly drunk he was amiable and fun and when very drunk he was remorselessly cruel and bitter. Six years of relative bliss were followed by four and a half years of increasing devolution as his descent into compulsive drinking took its toll on us both.
of course, i see soc.motss as a kind of conversation within a kind of family group, and not everyone sees it that way; one of my friends, who used to post quite a lot to this newsgroup, seems to have viewed it as a form of strife, aimed at the enemies without and what he saw as the enemies within, including those within himself.
Your friend is recognizable, both to me and within me. One thrust of my developing theme here is that what lies within us is a kind of spring, both in the sense of water -- refreshment and nourishment -- and in the sense of coiled steel -- a powerful weapon of both defense and offense. And both senses are great movers.
I imagine this friend to be more like me than unlike me, though my own nature more often finds its metaphor in the water, while his seems to gather itself more predictably in the steel.
So I imagine it to be with most of us, really, differing more in our metaphors than in our inward natures.
i found his view of the world disturbing, but comprehensible; the "attack early and attack often" stance that he took usually drove me away from the conversation, to wait until the shouting died down; and i never confronted him publicly, since that would merely have engaged me in his theater of contention. for his part, i think he found me an amiable lightweight, too nice for my own good.
That set of images, too, also speaks to me. I remember a time here when I readily locked horns with certain people, for I am nothing if not stubborn and determined, and not shy about speaking my mind. But, in time, there seemed little point in throwing good energy away on efforts that bore no results I could directly use. Switching to listening rather than speaking, by degrees I found a subtler music, sensitivities, commonalities even in strife, not to mention finer things. All this had been drowned out by my earlier outrage, by my heated emotions, by all my inner noise.
Alas, it wasn't the first time I have had to learn that lesson!
occasionally i've attacked someone verbally, thinking that it might do some good in this case, but i'm not sure that it was ever a good idea. more often, when i've entered one of these arguments, i've tried to talk to the ideas or beliefs at issue, and not to the particular people who espoused them, but this way of acting has its own perils; i risk losing too much of the human context that goes along with the ideas and beliefs. but there's no perfect way; you just have to do your best at muddling through.
Ah yes, these features I do recognize. I've noticed a couple people already who've lost patience with me, more or less suggesting that I'm noodling around. But I don't think so. It should be clear -- I'm mystified that it isn't, really -- that I'm staying aloof from the whole subject of Steve Dyer's computer, from extended issues of property and rights, and of course from my friend Clay. If time permits, I hope to take up some of the other commentary in due course.
i also don't think i've taken on a job as my friends' defender and explicator. there will surely be times when i'll stand up for my friends, but i get to choose these times.
But here I must mention Clay, because it's becoming clear that some of our readers are determined to see what I'm doing here as something like a defense. It isn't, that's all I can say. To say that I respect a person, that I like a person, that I enjoy a friendship with a person, does not mean that I give carte blanche approval to one thing or another that person thinks, says, or does.
Arnold and I seem not far apart on some of this. I count as friends also a number of people who have been quite outspoken in various ways that I also don't approve of.
just understand that i am conveying neither silent assent nor silent criticism. i will try to post on topics i find congenial, when i have the time.
Here, my own variant of this is to be catalyzed by what's been happening, to think about the sources of some of this, to absorb the actions and reactions of others in my own way, to let myself be transformed in some inchoate way, and finally to begin to articulate some of what has ensued within me.
Isn't it clear that for all its lack of precision or concreteness, that the impulse is from the inside outward, an effort to find the water/steel spring that both nourishes and propels what I've called an upwelling of vindictiveness? I'm not inseparably wedded to that exact characterization, of course, but there is a very definite something, a something that so far I've not seen taken very seriously by more than a couple of the followups. It does seem that Arnold took it seriously enough, at least enough to find in it a point of departure for his own thoughts.
i discovered that i was reluctant to let soc.motss know that jacques and i had had lunch with max meredith vasilatos, jess anderson, david christopher rogers, and rob bernardo last saturday. see? most of you are entertaining some fantasy in which we marked out newbies to fry, or something like that.
Whereas the most nearly reportable topic -- we ranged fairly wide and in a disorderly sequence -- was about how one learns to write better.
why should it be somehow dangerous for us to gather in a public place to talk and enjoy one another's company? and by the way, i notice that none of the other lunchers has mentioned this event -- worried about conspiracy theories, are we?)
I was intending an anonymously posted Cabal Session Report, highly elaborated, but there's only so much one can do, and as you say, the cabal myth has too much credence already; people will have their gods.
a real conversation passes back and forth among many participants, and its course is like the meander of a river. there is no guiding hand. people join and leave, as their lives and their passions allow; the river constantly changes its course.
Lovely.
