EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
No bio...
User ID: 78
So, what are you reading?
I’m going through This Star of England by the Ogburns, an Oxfordian biography of the man presumed to be the real Shakespeare by the authors. Thoughts below.
Still going through Abundance, Generosity and the State and The Mysterious William Shakespeare.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
9d ago
I never got around to actually reading Lacan, but the IEP's entry on him was stellar reading.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
12d ago
So, what are you reading?
I’m still on Hülsmann’s Abundance, Generosity and the State. Also going through Ogburn Jr.’s The Mysterious William Shakespeare, an Oxfordian tract. So far it has been a lot of interesting information well-presented, though occasionally I find his logic odd.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
19d ago
So, what are you reading?
I’m on Hülsmann’s Abundance, Generosity and the State, an attempt to understand gifts in the framework of Austrian economics. It was apparently inspired by Benedict XVI’s Caritas in veritate.
Wadsworth's The Poacher from Stratford, a book on the Shakespeare authorship question, has an unfortunate aspect of subtle but pervasive mockery under a veneer of objectivity, perhaps somewhat deserved, but still frustrating. Very rarely Wadsworth deigns to break the illusion and offer the most inane forms of contempt (“J. Thomas Looney, not to be confused with the Baconian, George M. Battey”). The information itself is appreciated, though by now at least some of it is known to be inaccurate.
For those anti-Stratfordians who seem more likely to have mental issues, there is often an element of a “hidden place” or something similar, some one thing which establishes complete proof of the proposition but is not really intended to be checked. Delia Bacon claimed that she had a historical study which proved her case that Francis Bacon was Shakespeare, one which she never published, and also that manuscripts would be found in Shakespeare’s grave, but (if what I’ve read is true) she lost the courage to unearth it. Similar things are noted in some of the other anti-Stratfordians, and not only Baconians. I wonder if something like this is necessary to underpin the general faith for certain kinds of minds. They may even believe it. Perhaps Delia never did write that historical study, but had a false memory that she did. In her telling, “It seemed better to save to the world the power and beauty of this demonstration, its intellectual stimulus, its demand on the judgement.” I do still wonder about the accuracy of reports of her insanity, given that this was the 19th century.
The book, in my opinion, gets less interesting after the Baconians are dealt with, no doubt because the Oxfordians were recent history at the time this book was written. Greenwood and Looney are given short thrift, and the familiar ciphers and buried documents take center stage again. I’m not finished yet, so there is still space to impress me.
Overall, it was worth reading, with some caveats. There are hints of familiar tropes, such as Shakespeare’s “genius” and allegations of snobbery, but these are surprisingly subdued. Most of it delves into details about the works and methods of anti-Stratfordians, with some terms like “literary sincerity” (the idea that an author’s life necessarily exerts a direct influence on his art) perhaps deserving a second look. The evident sneering (at least, that’s what I saw, it isn't always open) thoroughly undermines any claims to fair play, and it leaves an unpleasant image of a face behind the mask which outwardly says “Our role should be not to suppress debate but to instruct students how to consider the Oxfordians’ (and others’) arguments carefully and thoughtfully.” Nevertheless he did after all bother to write a book about the topic. A somewhat inauspicious but still valuable beginning to academic overviews of the topic.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
26d ago
So, what are you reading?
I’m still on The Poacher from Stratford. Thoughts below.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
1mo ago
So, what are you reading?
I’m on Wadsworth’s The Poacher from Stratford, a now somewhat dated academic book on the Shakespeare authorship question which affirms the orthodox case and studies the skeptics.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
1mo ago
So, what are you reading?
I’m reading Greenwood’s The Shakespeare Problem Restated, an old book positing that the man from Stratford didn’t write the plays, without suggesting a candidate of its own. It is remarkable how little the conversation has changed. Skeptics are still being called crazy reactionary snobs, and orthodox scholars are still being told that they’re appealing to authority, inertia and speculation.
Also going through Clifford’s The Ethics of Belief and James’ The Will to Believe, both short works. So far Clifford’s essay, which posits that one has a moral duty to base his beliefs on verified evidence (or something like that), is beautiful in its initial purity but gets a little confused when it has to make a framework for ethically believing in what others (like experts) say. Well worth reading in light of squabbles over conspiracy theorists.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
1mo ago
So, what are you reading?
I’m still on The Future Does Not Compute. Also trying to catch up on my Shakespeare with The Tempest.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
1mo ago
So, what are you reading?
I’m on Gardiner’s Athletics of the Ancient World, after reading the paper Mens Sana in Corpore Sano? Body and Mind in Ancient Greece by Young which was in part very critical of him. Still going through Reagan in His Own Hand and The Future Does Not Compute.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
2mo ago
Seems to be from 1975-1979, not long before his presidency, although the last section has miscellaneous writings from 1925-1994. It’s very engaging, much better than I would expect from a politician but not as dense as an actual book. The lack of a voice definitely diminishes his usual impact.
According to this CIA pdf there’s been a reappraisal in the 2000’s. As for my own previous impression, they were coloured by brief and likely misremembered readings of Lou Cannon’s work, which gave me the impression that he was aloof.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
2mo ago
So, what are you reading?
Still on The Future Does Not Compute. Picking up Reagan in His Own Hand, a collection of radio addresses he wrote, which has been cited as proof that the "amiable dunce" theory of Reagan is clearly false.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
2mo ago
So, what are you reading?
Still on Human Action and The Future Does Not Compute. Also finding my way back to the Bible, chiefly due to a growing interest in Ronald Reagan. As always, Ecclesiastes steals the show, though this time around Proverbs has resonated as well. It has been a very long time, and it’s apparent to me now that whatever the Bible lacks in technical quality, it makes up for in structure and direction. It is easy to forget its uniqueness.
I’m kind of obsessed with those points on human nature (though I get obsessed with new ideas on a weekly basis). I’m actually less interested in the economics, though that is interesting too. What really caught my attention was an extrapolation of his “methodological dualism” (Mises’ belief that the scientific metaphor is inappropriate for the social sciences), the idea of deductive reasoning as related to classical humanism, the liberal arts, etc. It’s one of the reasons why I’m getting interested in Spinoza as well.
As for the value of books, all I can say is that nothing else in my life has made such reliable and profound personal changes in me than books. Artistic works (including stories) are always an irreplacable whirlwind of feelings, and videos are very useful for finding new directions, but some things only come out in the written word, longform, as difficult as it can be to keep going.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
2mo ago
So, what are you reading? (There was another book thread in the Fun Thread here)
Still on Human Action. Also going through Talbott’s The Future Does Not Compute, an early and very unusual warning shot against the dangers of the internet. It is a bit haphazard, but also a bit profound, and I wonder why I have never heard of this book before.
To run on automatic is, for the human being, to sink toward instinct, unfreedom, and statistical predictability. It is to give up what sets us most vitally apart from our material environment and our tools. It is to remain asleep in our highest capacities.
Whether our ideals can survive depends- beyond all pessimism and optimism vested in automatic processes- on whether we can consciously take hold of the mechanisms around us and within us, and raise them into the service of what is most fully human because most fully awake. The first prerequisite is to recognize the severity of the challenge.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
2mo ago
So, what are you reading?
I’m still on Mises’ Human Action. Also going through Gregory’s The Seven Laws of Teaching which appears to have had an influence on the classical education movement.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
2mo ago
So, what are you reading?
I'm going through Mises' Human Action. Milei's appearance has been a gift to my mind. I've tried reading Mises and Rothbard before but they never clicked until now. Also reading the Enchiridion after reading Stockdale's essay Courage Under Fire: Testing Epictetus’s Doctrines in a Laboratory of Human Behavior.
There were also other book threads in the Fun Thread here and here.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
3mo ago
So, what are you reading?
I'm on Meyer's In Defense of Freedom. It's an effective statement of right-libertarian ideas, and surprisingly critical of Kirkian conservatism. Meyer's defense of freedom and reason is in large part against "New Conservatism's" defining of freedom as the freedom to do one's duty. It's surprising considering that the system related to his name is "fusionism." I'll have to dust off my Kirk sometime.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
3mo ago
So, what are you reading?
I'm almost done Arsene Lupin, Gentleman Burglar. It was alright, have a feeling I will remember it in a few years. Picking up Frank Meyer's In Defense of Freedom and Related Essays. I've heard Meyer's name as the father of fusionism, but I always had the impression that he was just a politically active figure and not the impressive writer and thinker which he appears to be.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
3mo ago
So, what are you reading?
I'm on Arsène Lupin, Gentleman Burglar. The writing is smooth and the character is great, though still hoping it will be more than just entertaining.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
3mo ago
Writing advice is meant to be absorbed and then ignored. You have to do your due dilligence and take it all in, and of course you need to get the fundamentals down (don't skip the fundamentals), but you should know how to ignore advice.
Some writers will tell you two different things if asked the same question at different times. The value of the corpus of words words words which constitutes writing advice is simply that it exists in all its sprawling horror. It is there to be consulted when you're lost. It won't teach you everything you need to know right now. It's an immanent tool, not a fixed pattern. It is the I Ching with mildly better results.
That said, some writing advice.
-
Do you have a coherent message? Can you put it in words, in a paragraph or two?
-
Signal-to-noise ratio is the single most important thing after message. You can equally damage the communication by mulling over things too much which the reader won't care about, even if it is of high technical quality. On the other hand, some things work simply because high techical quality was the point. What's important is if the message is transmitted.
You only need so much of each aspect as to get the message across effectively, and too much takes the focus away from the message. Your readers aren't stupid. Give them what you value in a form which they can accept, and they'll fill in the gaps themselves, sometimes by doing their own research. -
There really is no substitute for words outputted as far as getting off the ground goes, assuming that you haven't written lots and lots of words already. If you struggle to rack up words with a project which seems important to you, find a really dumb one which you won't take seriously (you don't have to hate it), anything that you can actually just write (you don't have to publish). You can't reflect on your writing if you have no writing to reflect on, however bad, and the mind seems to do this automatically.
Everyone is telling you to do this because we've all been there. At some point, it clicks, and it seems to do so simply by the amount of words. When you're there, at least you'll have a more realistic idea of where you stand and what your prospects are. The way you sound, I wouldn't trust your opinion of yourself.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
3mo ago
So, what are you reading?
I'm going through Richter's Pictures of a Socialistic Future, and early novel on dystopian socialism. It's a slow burn, and it's interesting to see what was within the imagination of early observers.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
4mo ago
It's a problem when one lives two completely different lives depending on if one is hooked or not, and especially when one of those lives is objectively better than the other by most personal and societal metrics.
And why shouldn't it be considered bad if people cannot choose to adhere to an aesthetic solely because their will is attenuated? I'm no puritan, but something isn't working here for a lot of people.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
4mo ago
So, what are you reading?
I'm still on McGilchrist's The Master and his Emissary. He posits that classical paradoxes like Achilles and the Tortoise are fundamentally left-hemisphere phenomena, which try to build up something from parts and run headlong into the problems of this way of thinking due to its rejection of interconnectedness and context.
Recently these kinds of thoughts seem recurring, that is, that there might be natural approaches to long-standing problems which make them simple, if only I could learn them. But it also seems like the touchy-feely approach which is often given as an alternative to bottom-up thinking needs much refining.
This Star of England is a biography Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, in light of the theory that he wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare.
Some of its scholarship seems, for lack of a better word, incestuous, as Ward's biography (he was an Oxfordian) is cited often, and Looney’s (also an Oxfordian) attributions of certain poems to Edward de Vere are also taken as a given.
The narrative itself is much more engaging than I expected. Still the truth is that the Lord Oxford does not always come off as being the sensitive, honest and forthright man who they attempt to portray him as. He seems an awful lot like a man who avoided his wife despite her faithfulness and then accused her of infidelity because he had a personality disorder. But then again the record is not complete, so much is, as the authors say, optional to assume.
Yet I’m enjoying myself immensely; the book reads like a mythology which is pregnant with potential meaning, and such books I deem essential to a complete picture of wisdom. These are the kinds of things which make me upset with our society’s tendency to hide certain books from view: one doesn’t even know where to begin to find a canon of such books. One must rediscover in agonizingly slow steps, in utter confusion, and at his own peril. Ogburn Jr.’s preface (pdf) is well worth reading, if nothing else.
More options
Context Copy link