Basic culture Options

[Gerard]

James Thurber's cartoon dedicated to all members of GR

[Aranesque]

Earlier Aran's response mentioned something about a big ignorant mouth and remembering Gaudeamus' instructions -- now it's all gone. Shows how ephemeral essential, cultural reading matter can be . . .

He calls from down the corridor:

I just thought it sounded too sarcastic - even for me.

[Kalisurfer]

James Thurber's cartoon dedicated to Kalisurfer


[attachment=9651:File0915.jpg]

Bravo on your cartoon selections in terms of relating to members here Gerard!

This one for me has got me thinking like I have not thought in a long time in terms of what I think is good art ... and maybe, just maybe, it may mean that when it comes to myself and my own work, I truly just have no idea ... but I'm working on it, but in end, thanks for including me, for it was great fun and something totally different.

[ras]

James Thurber's cartoon dedicated to all members of GR

I can't tell if this means we are disenchanted with our previous cult or GR. Is GR a cult?

Maybe since we're all refugees of the same group it's kind of like we are all each other's ex's.

[Gerard]

James Thurber's cartoon dedicated to all members of GR

I can't tell if this means we are disenchanted with our previous cult or GR. Is GR a cult?

Maybe since we're all refugees of the same group it's kind of like we are all each other's ex's.

Meant is : disenchanted with the way we knew GV. As far as I know GR is not a cult but a required taste.

[ePiTau]

James Thurber's cartoon dedicated to all members of GR

I can't tell if this means we are disenchanted with our previous cult or GR. Is GR a cult?

Maybe since we're all refugees of the same group it's kind of like we are all each other's ex's.

Meant is : disenchanted with the way we knew GV. As far as I know GR is not a cult but a required taste.

acquired distaste

[Gerard]

James Thurber's cartoon dedicated to all members of GR

I can't tell if this means we are disenchanted with our previous cult or GR. Is GR a cult?

Maybe since we're all refugees of the same group it's kind of like we are all each other's ex's.

Meant is : disenchanted with the way we knew GV. As far as I know GR is not a cult but a required taste.

acquired distaste

yes, you're right. I should have said "acquired". That "required" is probably a remnant of more authoritarian times.

[Gaudeamus]

...don't forget schools have curriculums which every pupil or student has to follow. Those are, in a sense, those 'reading lists' you are shrinking away from, but not particularly intended for purposes of 'being cultured', but rather for providing the pupils with the means of being able to find their way later in society...

Remarkable!

Just the other day I was telling someone how Golding's Lord of the Flies, and Tolkien's The Hobbit (essential components of our school reading list) really helped me find my way later in society.

My comment about schools was not about readings lists proper... it was about school curriculums, which you can see as an extended concept of reading list.

---

But seriously...

As I said before, and I take what I think is your point regarding works like Gilgamesh, and the writings of Homer - I (being a Celt) would also include, (The) Mabinogion and (The) Tain - as adumbrations of the 'soul' of the culture from whence they sprang.

Ancient works from the culture you were raised in are of course important. But how important are they ? Are they a prerequisite ?
And, besides, do you really consider yourself a Celt, more than you feel British ?

My problem, however - and I hope I am not sounding too monotonous at this point (though, a modicum of monotony, I feel, should be acceptable) is in being prescriptive...

My reasons for this aversion are just too complicated, and, frankly, tiresome to elucidate here...

No need to be prescriptive indeed. It should be possible to, at once describe what knowledge would be a requisite, and leave a person a degree of liberty to choose according to his or her inclinations. Would this be acceptable to you as a general rule of thumb ?

[Gaudeamus]

Aran's suggestions of The Mabinogion and Tolkien fit excellently in my list too. Although I must confess that I never did find my way in society.[/size]

You are fortunate Gerard, for many of us the Society has been trying to find us, hunting us down, in order to tell us just what books we HAVE to read, art to see, music to hear, films to watch, whom to worship and what party to vote for ... but we are on the run, doing it our way ... for they do run run run, they do ron ron!

We all know people who try to influence us and tell us we should be interested in this, read that author, join that party or cult, whatever.....

I am trying to establish some sort of standard.
Re my former comparison with school curriculums. They are a standard of what is required so you are able to find your way in society, pursue a career etc. That's the idea, isn't it ?

What I am about is just a general standard of what would make one "cultured". Not ignorant but without being an intellectual snob either, and without any attention to matters of status, material affluence or career.

[Gaudeamus]

Ignoring the possible prescriptiveness I like to add, of course, Ramayana & Mahabharata (should be on anybody's book list), Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass, Honoré de Balzac's La Comédie Humaine.

Could you explain why you would include each of these works, Gerard ? I suppose there must be different reasons.

Two books that were formative for me in the late 60's were Charles Fort's Book of the Damned and Pauwels & Bergier 's Le Matin des magiciens (The Morning of the Magicians).
Speaking of the 60's there were Kerouac, Ferlinghetti (whom I once met in his bookstore in SF) and Ginsberg.

Aran's suggestions of The Mabinogion and Tolkien fit excellently in my list too. Although I must confess that I never did find my way in society.

I heard about Fort's book (it was, sad to say, not high priority on my reading list as I felt it smacked too much of crackpottery to excite my curiosity....maybe mistakenly ); Pauwels&Bergier's 'Le Matin des Magiciens' is kind of famous in certain circles. I glanced into it. But do you mean to say you would include these works (and the other authors you mention - Kerouac, Ferlinghetti, Ginsberg - in our list of requisite works ?
I read Tolkien's 'The Hobbit' and most of 'The Lord of the Rings' too (but never counted on them to find my way in society.... these books seem to me conceived to find your way out of it, rather than in, which they aren't supposed to do anyway as they were not written to be part of a school curriculum).

[Gaudeamus]

As I mentioned somewhere, you have to make a choice, you can't spend your life reading, but I would certainly do my best to let the matter of personal taste get as little important as possible.

Then who's taste would you make more important than your own?

Gaudeamus seems to be hoping he can rise above all tastes and find a more objective ground to stand on. It would then allow for creation of a "canon".

I hope it won't be possible.

You are right, I think satisfying one's taste in literature is not relevant to one's degree of culturedness.
A 'canon' is maybe too big a word - just some sort of general standard ; but why do you hope it won't be possible ?

[Dhyana]

As I mentioned somewhere, you have to make a choice, you can't spend your life reading, but I would certainly do my best to let the matter of personal taste get as little important as possible.

Then who's taste would you make more important than your own?

Gaudeamus seems to be hoping he can rise above all tastes and find a more objective ground to stand on. It would then allow for creation of a "canon".

I hope it won't be possible.

You are right, I think satisfying one's taste in literature is not relevant to one's degree of culturedness.
A 'canon' is maybe too big a word - just some sort of general standard ; but why do you hope it won't be possible ?

For several reasons, I can list some, but there are more.

1) In matters of aesthetics I believe in every "consumer's" freedom to identify works that speak to them. An erudite may suggest some reading matter to a friend, that's fine because it is explicitly personal and subjective. But any general standard "alienates" the recommendation by lifiting it above what individuals feel. It's ultimately depersonalizing.
2) A reason related to the previous one: sometimes by making something compulsory reading you preempt the possibility of the readers discovering it on their own. They become "inoculated". Imagine if a friend of yours could peek into the future and tell you, "The girl you are going to meet in a moment will become your life's companion"?
3) There is so much good literature in the world that any attempt at formulating a canon is doomed to exclude more culture than it would include.

[ras]

3) There is so much good literature in the world that any attempt at formulating a canon is doomed to exclude more culture than it would include.

That is a fact. Just imagine all the great bathroom readers one misses out on once they have accepted the squatting position ("culture").

[Gaudeamus]

As I mentioned somewhere, you have to make a choice, you can't spend your life reading, but I would certainly do my best to let the matter of personal taste get as little important as possible.

Then who's taste would you make more important than your own?

Gaudeamus seems to be hoping he can rise above all tastes and find a more objective ground to stand on. It would then allow for creation of a "canon".

I hope it won't be possible.

You are right, I think satisfying one's taste in literature is not relevant to one's degree of culturedness.
A 'canon' is maybe too big a word - just some sort of general standard ; but why do you hope it won't be possible ?

For several reasons, I can list some, but there are more.

1) In matters of aesthetics I believe in every "consumer's" freedom to identify works that speak to them. An erudite may suggest some reading matter to a friend, that's fine because it is explicitly personal and subjective. But any general standard "alienates" the recommendation by lifiting it above what individuals feel. It's ultimately depersonalizing.

The effect would be depersonalizing if you were being forced to "like" it against your feeling. This is not the case. You don't have to like it. All you have to do is understand its importance for culture.

2) A reason related to the previous one: sometimes by making something compulsory reading you preempt the possibility of the readers discovering it on their own. They become "inoculated". Imagine if a friend of yours could peek into the future and tell you, "The girl you are going to meet in a moment will become your life's companion"?

Sure, you could be left to discover anything valuable and worthwhile on your own. That's true. If you want to be "cultured" though, you might want to know what you have to do in order to become so, and that would be reading certain works in preference to others. If you don't give a damn about being "cultured", that would be no problem of course.

3) There is so much good literature in the world that any attempt at formulating a canon is doomed to exclude more culture than it would include.

True too. But there is so much bad literature as well (or just not that good, let's say, for the purposes we have in mind), that you might lose much time and waste many efforts.....

In short - can it do any harm to indicate what's really worthwhile to spend time on ?

[Kalisurfer]

True too. But there is so much bad literature as well (or just not that good, let's say, for the purposes we have in mind), that you might lose much time and waste many efforts.....

In short - can it do any harm to indicate what's really worthwhile to spend time on ?

•
•
Dear literary citizens of the world,
these five men shall hence forth deem which literature is good or bad ...
... valued or unworthy of our time in becoming refined human citizens ...
... steeped in the basic culture of the new world order!
Let the ONE TRUE acculturation begin!
•

•
•

[ePiTau]

True too. But there is so much bad literature as well (or just not that good, let's say, for the purposes we have in mind), that you might lose much time and waste many efforts.....

In short - can it do any harm to indicate what's really worthwhile to spend time on ?

•
•
Dear literary citizens of the world,
these five men shall hence forth deem which literature is good or bad ...
... valued or unworthy of our time in becoming refined human citizens ...
... steeped in the basic culture of the new world order!
Let the ONE TRUE acculturation begin!
•

•
•

Brilliant team! Only one little doubt remains: none of these five, mature gentlemen wears glasses, do they not read?
And if they do not read, would we have to assume they employ others, slightly lower-leveled (but fortunate) souls, who read all the important literature to them?
Hopefully with the correct accents and meters, so as not to miss the subtleties true connoisseurs discern.

But seriously, there is a good article on Cultural relativism over at Wikipedia. It seems no trivial topic.

[Kalisurfer]

Brilliant team! Only one little doubt remains: none of these five, mature gentlemen wears glasses, do they not read?
And if they do not read, would we have to assume they employ others, slightly lower-leveled (but fortunate) souls, who read all the important literature to them?
Hopefully with the correct accents and meters, so as not to miss the subtleties true connoisseurs discern.

But seriously, there is a good article on Cultural relativism over at Wikipedia. It seems no trivial topic.

Their monocles are tucked neatly next to their kerchiefs inside the tweed vest's pocket eP, but you are keen in your observation indeed, as they do employ hundreds of thousand graduates from the "Literature Propagating Bonafide Culture" program instituted by the Cultural Ministry of Mincing the One True Literary List. These certified busy bees of the written word do read all the books the Literary Culture Governing Board (LCGB) do not have time to do, but the Governing Board does take the condensed notes very seriously in deciding what is good and true for the new world order culture.

I took a glance at the wiki-"Cultural Relativism" page, and there is a lot to digest, looks like golden good grist for the mill of furthering this discussion by all means, so I shall read and learn, thanks for the link.

[Gaudeamus]

True too. But there is so much bad literature as well (or just not that good, let's say, for the purposes we have in mind), that you might lose much time and waste many efforts.....

In short - can it do any harm to indicate what's really worthwhile to spend time on ?

•
•
Dear literary citizens of the world,
these five men shall hence forth deem which literature is good or bad ...
... valued or unworthy of our time in becoming refined human citizens ...
... steeped in the basic culture of the new world order!
Let the ONE TRUE acculturation begin!
•

•
•

No Kalisurfer, I think you didn't get it. As satire this is very good, but it doesn't apply.

Firstly, there is no panel consisting of older men without a brain cortex to dictate you what you have to read.
It's just me.

Secondly, it's not really about 'good' or 'bad' literature (althouth I am sure you yourself will undoubtedly have your own opinion about what is good and bad literature, even if you don't proclaim it. After all, we all know there is bad literature and there is good literature). The issue is about which works or authors are more or less needed to contribute to someone's culture level. I know people can feel very subjective about this, and everyone is absolutely free to read or reject whatever they wish to : their freedom implies the consequences of accepting this, or rejecting that, are their own. But I must repeat again that what I want to know if it is possible to establish some sort of objective criteria or list of criteria which would point to some works of literature rather than other ones, as far as raising someone's culture level is concerned.

Maybe I should add that this is not about being considered cultured only in your own particular culture....

[Kalisurfer]

No Kalisurfer, I think you didn't get it. As satire this is very good, but it doesn't apply.

Thanks for liking the satire, but it could not work unless it was applied to the topic at hand, it just does not agree with your point of wanting a consensus toward a list of books that deems one cultured. Satire usually is applied toward a counter point or argument toward a thought or belief, making it ironic or sarcastic through a humorous venue, be it words or images. I am not saying that I am ultimately right, just different and in disagreement with your theoretical attempt for a book/author list that would deem a person or society as properly cultured.

Firstly, there is no panel consisting of older men without a brain cortex to dictate you what you have to read.
It's just me.

I see, so instead of a panel of men from one particular culture deciding, it should be one man, a dictator, perhaps even possibly you?

Secondly, it's not really about 'good' or 'bad' literature (althouth I am sure you yourself will undoubtedly have your own opinion about what is good and bad literature, even if you don't proclaim it. After all, we all know there is bad literature and there is good literature)

You seem to contradict yourself here saying it is not about 'good' or 'bad' literature, but then say that there is 'good' and 'bad' literature therefore making it about good or bad literature, and so far, you are the only one bringing up the idea of literature deemed 'good' or 'bad'.

The issue is about which works or authors are more or less needed to contribute to someone's culture level.

I am trying to figure out why it is needed, be it more or less, and in your case, it is implying that it it is MORE needed for some reason, and not Less? Do you believe that there is a lack of culture, or perhaps the wrong culture in the world at large that is causing a problem that needs fixing?

I know people can feel very subjective about this, and everyone is absolutely free to read or reject whatever they wish to : their freedom implies the consequences of accepting this, or rejecting that, are their own. But I must repeat again that what I want to know if it is possible to establish some sort of objective criteria or list of criteria which would point to some works of literature rather than other ones, as far as raising someone's culture level is concerned.

It seems like everyone here so far is saying NO, it is not possible to establish some sort of objective criteria or list of criteria which would point to some works of literature as more cultured. Most are saying that such an act or list could not be agreed up for no democratic process would agree on where it starts and where it ends, unless a board or dictator decided on such a list and the rest of us would have to follow or ignore.

Once such an agreed list is made, would then a test be made so individuals could be certified and stamped as approved as officially cultured? Would we carry a card that stated we are culture mavens, or would we get a diploma that could framed and put on a wall, maybe a chip could be embedded under our skin, then official digital readers would beep and let the world know that we are genuine and bonafide in our culturedness ... heck, maybe a barcode tattooed onto our forehead for all the world to see our cultural supremacy?

Maybe I should add that this is not about being considered cultured only in your own particular culture....

But in all cultures? This makes the premise even more impossible, due to the cultural, economic, political, social, ethnic, religious, environmental, generational and gender differences that exist in the world, not to mention even within one's own particular culture ... unless you think that there needs to be one agreed upon system to make each one of those categories (race, ethnicity, politics, economic, religion) more pure and true than others, just as you are trying to apply to literature and culture?

[Kalisurfer]

Gaudeamus, I just found a 2 year old article from the Daily Telegraph about 110 Books for the Perfect Library.

110 Books for the Perfect Library

I thought it would be interesting to see just how many of these books you think should not be in the Perfect Library?

What if some authority made these books the necessary ones to be read in order to be considered cultured, would you read them in order to be culturally certified?

This seems like a never ending argument, an attempt that is impossible to objectively verify ... though many have and will keep trying.
•
• •
•
FREEDOM as FREADOM
Free to be as personally cultured ... as one chooses
•