Sunday, November 30, 2008
Farewell
I am, at heart, a scientist. Having even one intellectual hair out of place nags at me until I fix it. Sometimes fixing that one little nagging thing results in one’s entire intellectual edifice crashing down.
I found Kim’s site long ago, maybe a year or so after Kim started blogging. I had entered corporate America, and much to my chagrin, I discovered that it was mind-numbing boring ninety percent of the time. Luckily, they provided me with this magic box and a connection to the rest of the world, so I could simultaneously entertain myself and pretend to be working.
As I explored the internet looking for something to read, I ran across Rachel Lucas’ blog. I remember having to look up “blog” on an on-line dictionary, just to figure out what it was I was reading. Ah, we were so innocent then…..
One thing led to another, and I ended up reading Kim’s site. Then Connie’s site.
Then one day I responded to a cryptic blog post asking for resumes for a secret project. I figured, what the heck? Nothing to lose, everything to gain.
And that’s how I got to know Kim and Connie.
Unfortunately, the project never got off the ground, but I still remember the hope and optimism I had for those few months. An end to the drudgery of corporate America! A work environment that respects the importance I place on homeschooling! It sounded like heaven on earth. As it stands, I’m still chained to my desk. But even having the hope of escape for a few months is a precious memory for me.
At the time, I was a pretty doctrinaire libertarian. I had a theoretical construct built in my mind as to how the world should work, and it would work great if everyone were just like me. And that’s the part that bothered me – libertarianism seemed like a great theory that fails the reality test. Start putting real people, with real foibles and quirks, into that theory, and all of a sudden the theory starts to fall apart. The theoretical scientist in me wasn’t bothered by such trivialities. The practical part of me, luckily, the dominant part, had been bothered by this fact for a long time.
I knew that Kim and Connie put forth a lot of libertarian-sounding ideas, but they did not consider themselves libertarian. On a whim, hoping that maybe their ideas would help me fix this hair that was out of place, I asked Connie to elaborate a bit more on her political and philosophical beliefs.
The following three months were probably the most exciting three months in my intellectual life. There’s nothing quite like pitching everything you ever knew into the garbage can and starting over from scratch, to get your blood pumping.
It’s hard to describe exactly how I changed. It’s not something simple and superficial, like deciding you’re tired of supporting this sports team, and now I’m going to support a different one. One’s ethos should not be chosen on a whim. If all goes well, one chooses it because it is right, and because through much thought and reflection, one has convinced one’s self of it’s rightness. I was led to water, I drank, and I realized that everything I knew was wrong.
Fundamentally, I grew up. Intellectually, emotionally, and philosophically, I grew up. Doors were opened to me that had previously been closed. Things that I had been told were important but had never been shown why they were important, took on a whole new meaning and urgency. I had spent the first couple decades of my life wasting time, merely skirting issues of importance. It wasn’t my fault, really, since I had never had someone to explain to me the importance of history or literature. It was all just trivia, fact accumulation, stamp collection. It could be fun, but in the end it was meaningless. Now, with a new understanding of why these things are important, I’ve been trying re-educate myself, learning all over again all that I knew, in a new intellectual context. At this point, I’m grateful for what I do know, and I’m humbled by what I don’t. There’s so much more out there….
Kim and Connie have said that they want to change the world, one person at a time. That’s the idea behind the Nation of Rifleman, Literate Nation, and virtually every other project they’ve ever embarked upon. I suspect they realize this, but every individual they touch that is changed results in an exponential ripple effect that they may or may not see. I have changed dramatically, and as a result, my family is changed, some of my friends and acquaintances are changed, even my California liberal in-laws are changing in subtle ways. And Kim and Connie are the root cause of all of this. They have many friends, hundreds of commenters, thousands of readers, and very likely, tens or even hundreds of thousands of people that they have positively influenced during their tenure in the blogosphere. I suspect they know this at some level, but I think they need to be reminded just how much of an impact they have truly made. It’s nothing less than heroic.
I want to take this opportunity to thank Kim and Connie for everything they have done for me personally, for the conservative movement in general, and for the world. You two have been a positive influence on so many people in so many ways that it is impossible to enumerate them all. You’ve sacrificed much, endured hardships, put up with attacks on your lifestyle and integrity, and have come through it all with grace and dignity. You are truly talented people, and an example for us all.
Two great lights in the blogosphere go out today, but only after shining so brightly for so long. Enjoy your blog retirements. You’ve certainly earned it.
Comments
-
Thank you. You kept me honest.
Mrs. du Toit | 11/30/2008 10:04 AM CDT -
Don’t be silly, AF. We just said stuff that made sense to us: it’s YOU who did, and continue to do, all the heavy lifting and hard work.
But thank you, all the same.
(Mr.) Kim du Toit | 11/30/2008 11:01 AM CDT -
Not having internet at home, I missed the chance to comment on Kim & Connie’s blogs at the final moment.
They continue to ripple through me, too.
P.S. Thanks for giving me heart attack with your post title. I thought you were retiring, too.
Weetabix | 12/1/2008 12:23 PM CDT -
Just like Weetabix, I thought you were about to retire alongside Kim & Connie. I’m so glad my initial assumption was wrong.
I enjoyed reading your fond farewell to old friends, as I share some of those thoughts.
I’d be interested, if possible, in hearing about some of the things you learned and how they changed you?
yabusame | 12/2/2008 06:17 AM CDT -
Well spoken, sir.
raven | 12/3/2008 05:19 PM CDT -
Weetabix: I posted this is Connie’s comments, but those are not visible now. I’m not quitting the blog, but there is no way I can keep up a “normal” blogging schedule at the moment. I’ll continue to post irregularly. I’m viewing this blog as more of an essay repository than a blog at this point.
Yabusame: When I really strip everything down to basics, it comes down to a few things.
One - Nock’s paradigm that you can’t change people that don’t want to be changed. The world actually IS insane, and there’s nothing you can do about it. Accept that fact, stop fighting against it, and instead, look for and enjoy the nuggets of good in the world, be they people, art, music, etc. Connie told me long ago that after a long process of assimilating his ideas, Nock would eventually bring me peace. She was right - though the world still frustrates me, I feel at peace with it. I no longer feel a need to fight that which cannot be changed, nor a need to lament that the world and the people in it are not something better.
Two - Related to the first, a much heightened appreciation for what IS good in the world. I’ve come to accept that there are very few people that can really appreciate beauty in the world. But I’ve also learned that people who have lived in the past leave relics of their lives for us to enjoy today. A Beethoven symphony, a great work of art, even Nock’s memoirs - I feel like I get to know the composer/artist/author in some intimate way when experiencing the fruits of their labors. They may be long dead, but their spirit lives on. And being able to touch that spirit makes all of the flaws of the rest of the world tolerable.
Three - An appreciation of history as a human laboratory. It is generally considered immoral to experiment upon humans without their consent. Well, various economic and governmental systems have been imposed on humans with or without their consent for thousands of years. Pretty much everything that can be tried has been tried, we just have to be smart enough to look back and understand. This simple fact totally changed my perception of what the study of history is FOR, what it is ABOUT, and it added a whole new urgency to learning as much as I could, in a whole new context.
There are other things too - firearm ownership, civic responsibility, education, etc. But those three are really the ones that changed the way I look at the world in a fundamental way.
American Farmer | 12/4/2008 03:05 PM CDT -
Having reviewed your three fundamental changes, I can’t help but wonder if I am at the beginning of the path you are already some way along.
I haven’t read Nock, but I see that he is an author that may resonate with me. I’ll have to grab a copy of his books and start reading. I’m at the stage where I am dismayed with the way things are around me and I want them changed, but am powerless to do anything about it. Maybe Nock will give me peace in the same way he has for you.
I think that an appreciation for what is good in this world is often overlooked, and its certainly an area I should concentrate on more. I try and take time to look at the good (listening to classical music, attending good theatre, etc). It just doesn’t seem to be enough sometimes.
I have had a love of history for as long as I can remember, having said that, I hadn’t thought of it as a means of divining the future based on the actions and consequences of the past. This is something that I have realised in the past year and I now appreciate the need for a great founding in history. The study of history is relevant. I just need to study it in a more structured manner. How did you go about doing this? Did you attend college classes, or structure your own time to review history references etc?
Thanks for sharing. I look forward to reading more of your essays
yabusame | 12/5/2008 06:40 AM CDT -
Nock isn’t everything, but he is a very good start, especially his autobiography.
The value of it is sort of like a primer, in the sense that Nock was of the OLD school--the one where we used to educate men for the purpose of being the world’s canaries. These men used to fill the ivory towers and passed along the wisdom of the ages to other men who were educable (and very few men ARE educable).
Nock distills history in his autobiography and will point you to other sources to fill in the gaps. It is like reading the final exam and then you take the course.
For example, an aspect of history that is often missing from U.S. schools is the period of the civil war until WWI. We study WWII, but we aren’t clear on what caused it, and the events leading up to it in the world. We focus only on U.S. events, but the world was going through a major paradigm shift at the time, and knowing about that is critically important.
(Read Barbara Tuchman’s Proud Tower. After reading that summary, you’ll suck the library shelves looking for more details.)
WWII didn’t occur in a vacuum. It happened as a direct result of a badly handled end to WWI. WWI happened because of changes that were occurring all over Europe in the 50 years leading up to the turn of the century.
How did Churchill know EXACTLY what Hitler was doing? How did he know exactly how the Russians would respond? He had evidence of what Hitler was doing, long before he became dangerous, but he also knew to look for the evidence, because he was an EDUCATED man. Churchill wasn’t able to get the world to do anything soon enough to stop it, so even knowing doesn’t always help. All he could do was make the case AFTER the fact and it was only then that he was allowed to hold the reigns of power long enough to see The West survive the massacre.
The details are important, as they explain why (for example) FDR did the things he did. It doesn’t excuse them, but it explains a lot of it.
That’s only 100 years of history, and knowing those details allows you to see a pattern… and it is the discovery of patterns that is the purpose of studying history.
Once you see THAT pattern, understanding what is happening in the world today, the way the terrorists are packaging their war, will become crystal clear… and all the nonsense of about it being a religious war (or the crap about “Why they hate us") will drop to the wayside. You will feel as if you’ve been duped… but not by the terrorists, but by history professors who left out the critical details of other anarchist periods in history that, if known, would have made this one recognizable, long before it became a problem.
Once the patterns begin emerging, you have a framework with which to judge prior AND future events. Eventually, and you just have to trust me on this, all of history will appear as repeating patterns (although the time scales make some of the changes take longer).
That is not to say that there is ONE pattern, only that they become more alike than dissimilar. It is similar to war gaming strategy, where you have A, B, or C approaches.
It is with that framework that you can begin to make judgments about the soundness of any specific policy, or predict what will happen in the future, because we’re in an XYZ pattern, and that pattern always yields C.
As I said, you just have to trust me, and Farmer took me at my word and began studying the details of those events. It was also made clear that (eventually) history would appear like a road map, with major milestones fitting together like a Gantt chart. You have that map in your head and see those patterns and borders. As you learn more history you fill in the gaps between and get a bigger perspective… in the sense of pulling back to the 65,000 foot level. For a while you have to be mired in details, just to get a sense of things, but you don’t stay mired in details forever.
As Nock make quite clear a number of times (and in various ways): We study history not to REMEMBER with, but to THINK with. The purpose of the study is to allow you to understand what occurs today, because history is always today.
The study of history has been bastardized for 100 years. It used to be that names, dates, and places were not nearly as important as understanding what happened and why. Ask any person who graduated from High School what WWII was about and they’ll give you some drivel about countries and dates, naming the big hitters like Hitler, Stalin, or Churchill… with NO understanding at all of the reasons why the war occurred and how it could have been prevented, a decade before it began.
It was THAT knowledge that the “Superfluous Men” like Nock used to provide to the world.
But those great men have gone out of the world. Our educational institutions teach nothing like education anymore… they’re 100% vocational, which has NOTHING to do with education.
Once you have a couple hundred years under your belt, then you’ll start to look for answers to your “why” questions… which will begin the exploration into the realm of philosophy. You’ll understand Rousseau’s influence [spit] and see who influenced him.
It is important to keep in mind that the Western Canon doesn’t leave out the dangerous. It includes the writing of men like Rousseau, along side the works of Marx. They’re there so you can recognize them and understand how they packaged their message to appeal to the masses. Their inclusion is not an advertisement or a method of condoning what they championed.
Understanding Rousseau allows you to see how his gibberish continues to creep into the body politic today… and understand how dreadfully dangerous it is.
But I must warn you… this is a situation where you are being offered the Red Pill or the Blue Pill. Once you swallow the pill, you cannot go back. You will never again relate to your fellows. You cannot have conversations with your buddies and feel a sense of fellowship again. They’ll be talking about names and dates and unless they, too, take the time to study, will be incapable of following your line of reasoning or logic. They would have to do the heavy lifting in order to understand it… and 95 times out of 100, they won’t or can’t.
You’ll find kin and fellowship only with a very few… You’ll be alone in the world, distant and seperate from other men… and you’ll seek the company of long dead authors of history as your only company.
From The Disadvantages of Being Educated
An educated young man likes to think; he likes ideas for their own sake and likes to deal with them disinterestedly and objectively. He will find this taste an expensive one, much beyond his means, because the society around him is thoroughly indisposed towards anything of the kind. It is preeminently a society, as John Stuart Mill said, in which the test of a great mind is agreeing in the opinions of small minds. In any department of American life this is indeed the only final test; and this fact is in turn a fair measure of the extent to which our society is inimical to thought. The president of Columbia University is reported in the press as having said the other day that “thinking is one of the most unpopular amusements of the human race. Men hate it largely because they can not do it. They hate it because if they enter upon it as a vocation or avocation it is likely to interfere with what they are doing.” This is an interesting admission for the president of Columbia to make - interesting and striking. Circumstances have enabled our society to get along rather prosperously, though by no means creditably, without thought and without regard for thought, proceeding merely by a series of improvisations; hence it has always instinctively resented thought, as likely to interfere with what it was doing. Therefore, the young person who has cultivated the ability to think and the taste for thinking is at a decided disadvantage, for this resentment is now stronger and more heavily concentrated than it ever was. Any doubt on this point may be easily resolved by an examination of our current literature, especially our journalistic and periodical literature.
The educated lad also likes to cultivate a sense of history. He likes to know how the human mind has worked in the past, and upon this knowledge he instinctively bases his expectations of its present and future workings. This tends automatically to withdraw him from many popular movements and associations because he knows their like of old, and knows to a certainty how they will turn out. In the realm of public affairs, for instance, it shapes his judgment of this-or-that humbugging political nostrum that the crowd is running eagerly to swallow; he can match it all the way back to the politics of Rome and Athens, and knows it for precisely what it is. He can not get into a ferment over this-or-that exposure of the almost incredible degradation of our political, social and cultural character; over an investigation of Tammany’s misdoings; over the Federal Government’s flagitious employment of the income-tax law to establish a sleeping-partnership in the enterprises of gamblers, gangsters, assassins and racketeers; over the wholesale looting of public property through official connivance; over the crushing burden which an ever-increasing bureaucratic rapacity puts upon production. He knows too much about the origin and nature of government not to know that all these matters are representative, and that nothing significant can be done about them except by a self-sprung change of character in the people represented. He is aware, with Edmund Burke, that “there never was for any long time a corrupt representation of a virtuous people, or a mean, sluggish, careless people that ever had a good government of any form.” He perceives, with Ibsen, that “men still call for special revolutions, for revolutions in politics, in externals. But all that sort of thing is trumpery. It is the soul of man that must revolt.”
Thus in these important directions, and in others more or less like them, the educated youth starts under disadvantages from which the trained youth is free. The trained youth has no incentive to regard these matters except as one or another of them may bear upon his immediate personal interest. Again, while education does not make a gentleman, it tends to inculcate certain partialities and repugnances which training does not tend to inculcate, and which are often embarrassing and retarding. They set up a sense of self-respect and dignity as an arbiter of conduct, with a jurisdiction far outreaching that of law and morals; and this is most disadvantageous. Formerly this disadvantage was not so pressing, but now it is of grave weight. At the close of Mr. Jefferson’s first term, some of his political advisers thought it would be a good move for him to make a little tour in the North and let the people see him. He replied, with what now seems an incomprehensible austerity, that he was “not reconciled to the idea of a chief magistrate parading himself through the several States as an object of public gaze, and in quest of an applause which, to be valuable, should be purely voluntary.” In his day a chief magistrate could say that and not lose by it; Mr. Jefferson carried every northern State except Connecticut and every southern State except Maryland. At the present time, as we have lately been reminded, the exigencies of politics have converted candidacy for public office into an exact synonym for an obscene and repulsive exhibitionism.
Mrs. du Toit | 12/5/2008 09:03 AM CDT -
Here was an essay question from my 9th-grade European History class. We were given three days to write it.
“Which of the following was the most influential politician of the 19th century: Bismarck, Metternich, Talleyrand.
“Write no fewer than 5,000 words to support your choice. Be sure to discuss all three in your essay.”
I very much doubt that too many university students could write that essay today.
Afterthought: I’d originally suggested Talleyrand—but upon reflection of what I know now, I’d have to give it to Bismarck.
(Mr.) Kim du Toit | 12/8/2008 12:01 PM CDT -
How did you go about doing this? Did you attend college classes, or structure your own time to review history references etc?
Ack. If there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s that coursework aimed at the masses makes me some combination of bored, crazy, and homicidal. They don’t teach history, they teach stamp collecting. And then they test you on how you’ve memorized your stamps.
I basically just read. A mixture of primary and secondary sources, mostly from the library, some based on recommendations, some chosen randomly. Usually the topic is chosen based on my latest whim, and then I dive down that rabbit hole for awhile.
You’ll find kin and fellowship only with a very few… You’ll be alone in the world, distant and seperate from other men… and you’ll seek the company of long dead authors of history as your only company.
This is absolutely the hardest thing I’ve had to come to terms with. I now feel like I’m nearly alone. Surrounded by people, but alone. I’ve spent a long time trying to find a community of like-minded people. Not just intelligent conservatives, but decent, moral, intelligent, civilized people. If it exists, I sure can’t find it. And in the meantime, my tolerance for the uncouth, the willfully stupid, and the just plain blissfully ignorant has gone down dramatically.
Picking up Nock is frequently like becoming reacquainted with an old friend. It’s a really strange feeling, being largely alone in the world, and then getting warm fuzzies from a book by a 70 year old man, written 70 years ago. But he writes in such a way that I feel I know him, our minds work similarly, we get each other. Our life’s philosophy is similar in fundamental ways, ways that made him isolated in his time and me in mine.
I can live with the isolation, though I don’t think I’ll ever stop looking for like-minded people.
By the way, the Disadvantages of Being Educated is one of the best essays Nock ever wrote, in my opinion. Read the whole thing.
American Farmer | 12/9/2008 12:27 PM CDT -
I basically just read. A mixture of primary and secondary sources, mostly from the library, some based on recommendations, some chosen randomly. Usually the topic is chosen based on my latest whim, and then I dive down that rabbit hole for awhile.
It’s funny, but I tend to read in exactly the same way. Something will grab my attention and then I’ll read everything in sight. I’ve tried to cut back on the number of books I buy, however, and rely on the library more but its just a small village library and they don’t hold much of interest.
By the way, the Disadvantages of Being Educated is one of the best essays Nock ever wrote, in my opinion. Read the whole thing.
I have read the Disadvantags of Being Educated essay by Nock on a couple of occassions. It’s interesting that one should be alone when educated but I feel that way now, just for the want of being educated.
I guess the recommendation that both you and Connie are making is that I read. And to read prolifically. From primary & secondary sources wherever possible.
I guess I should just start reading historically, rather than willy nilly as I do now. For example, I have read a couple of books about the Burma Campaign during WWII because my grandfather fought there, alongside the 11th East African Division. I guess I should start following different lines of enquiry that come from that ‘study’, no matter where they might lead. Especially placing that campaign in the larger picture of the war itself and the politics of the area/time.
To summarise, to become educated I need to read books of an historical nature, preferably primary & secondary sources, and to view each historical act within its wider context. Is that how you’d suggest it?
yabusame | 12/10/2008 05:44 AM CDT -
Yes and no. There’s nothing wrong with that approach, as it is necessary to have a general grounding in historical events. If it becomes too much a reading of what kind of saddle General X used, it becomes too detailed (for this purpose). That is not to say that mounts might not be an interesting subject, but it doesn’t serve the purpose of understanding world events, and what caused them.
There are far more books that are not worth reading than there are good ones.
Mrs. du Toit | 12/10/2008 10:36 AM CDT -
There are far more books that are not worth reading than there are good ones.
That’s a vital point. It’s not just reading, it’s sifting through the garbage to find the actual valuable material.
You’re not reading for the purpose of being able to win on Jeopardy, you’re reading to understand WHY things happened. Not just the direct causes, but the social and historical context in which they happened, and how everything fits into the big picture. Most sources don’t approach material from that perspective. That’s why primary sources are unique and vital, they can’t help but give you a flavor of the historical context.
American Farmer | 12/11/2008 10:34 AM CDT -
That’s a vital point. It’s not just reading, it’s sifting through the garbage to find the actual valuable material.
OK, I’ll ask the obvious question then, do you guys have a short bibliography that you’d recommend as a starting point for different periods in history (2-3 books per period)? I’d ask for a complete list, but that could be a bit onerous, and it would detract from my own studies too.
I vaguely remember a similar list being mentioned on The Gun Thing forum, but I didn’t save anything from it before that forum was shut down.
It would be nice to at least start from a good position and see where the journey takes me.
yabusame | 12/12/2008 04:57 AM CDT -
A short bibliography? No.
Since the ability to insert links is escaping me at the moment....
The Western Canon is the great compendium of history, literature, and knowledge of the Western world. The wikipedia page has links to various lists of books. It’s huge, it’s intimidating, and the fact that you can’t read it all is totally irrelevant. Pick something that interests you, read it, and go from there.
Another great resource is the Hillsdale Curriculum. Google “Hillsdale Curriculum” and it’s at the top. This is the curriculum Hillsdale uses for their on-site elementary and high schools. I figured that if I haven’t read what their high schoolers have read when they graduate, that’s the first place to start when attempting to backfill my education.
American Farmer | 12/12/2008 10:00 AM CDT -
Thanks AM, you’ve given me more information there than you know. I have looked at Hillsdale’s website in the past but didn’t look at their detailed curriculum.
Now that I’ve taken a look at a classical curriculum, I have a plan, it may be a ‘cunning plan’ (as Baldrick from Blackadder would say) but its a plan all the same.
I’m thinking of using the Hillsdale Curriculum as a basis for my own study curriculum. Obviously, I can’t assign myself coursework, but I’ll be using the following as a guide to reading and studying the texts. I’m thinking of studying the texts as described in the Hillsdale curriculum, but reading them in this order:
1. Humane Letters - Grade 9 - Summer Reading Requirement
2. Humane Letters - History - Grade 9 - 1st Trimester
3. Humane Letters - Literature - Grade 9 - 1st Trimester
4. Latin I - Grade 9 - 1st Trimester
5. Mathematics - Geometry - Grade 9 - 1st Trimester
6. Rhetoric - Grade 9 - 1st Trimester
7. Science - Biology - Grade 9 - 1st Trimester
8. Humane Letters - History - 9th Grade - 2nd Trimester
9. Humane Letters - Literature - 9th Grade - 2nd Trimester
10. Latin I - Grade 9 - 2nd Trimester
11. Mathematics - Geometry - Grade 9 - 2nd Trimester
12. Rhetoric - Grade 9 - 2nd Trimester
13. Science - Biology - Grade 9 - 2nd Trimester
14. Humane Letters - History - 9th Grade - 3rd Trimester
15. Humane Letters - Literature - 9th Grade - 3rd Trimester
16. Latin I - Grade 9 - 3rd Trimester
17. Mathematics - Geometry - Grade 9 - 3rd Trimester
18. Rhetoric - Grade 9 - 3rd Trimester
19. Science - Biology - Grade 9 - 3rd Trimester...repeat above for each grade…
That should give me a LOT of reading to be getting on with.
Comments?
yabusame | 12/12/2008 11:58 AM CDT -
That’s a lot more structured than the way I’m going about it, but you do what works for you.
I’m good on science and math. My deficiencies are in history, literature, and philosophy. So I went through the middle and high school curricula, made a list of every book they read, checked off the ones I’ve read and am comfortable with, and then started reading what was left. Sometimes I stuck to the list, sometimes not. Awhile back a found a philosophy website through something Connie linked, and reading material there sidetracked me for a good month.
So the list is just a guide, a beginning point for study.
American Farmer | 12/12/2008 01:58 PM CDT
