On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> SA wrote:
> >
> > Carrol Cox wrote:
> >
> > > Perhaps. But does coincidence even provisionally "explain" anything in
> > > and of itself. I can't remember which essay it wasm byt Stephen Jay
> > > Gould once pointed out that the price of gasoline and some astronomical
> > > phenomenon perfectly tracked each other. In fact I think the number of
> > > striking but utterly insignifican correspondences of this kind is near
> > > to countless.
> > >
> >
> > So then how do you know that the coincidence of Southern violence and
> > white unity explains anything?
>
> I don't know. I probably expressed myself too strongly. I am fairly
> certain however that _origins_ explain _nothing_. No tradition is ever
> accepted or adopted unless it responds to some need in the present. It
> is that present cause that needs to be identified.
>
> Actually, this became clear to me before I ever got involved in
> politics. Literary influence doesn't explain a fucking thing. If a
> writer shows strong influence of a past writer, it is because he/she
> finds a current need that is fulfilled by his/her 'acceptance' of that
> "influence." Pope and Wordsworth both practically knew the works of
> Milton by heart, and both show strong Miltonic influences, but obviously
> in both cases the influence is only operative because it satisfies their
> purposes independently of the influence.
>
> Carrol
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- ********************************************************* Alan P. Rudy Dept. Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work Central Michigan University 124 Anspach Hall Mt Pleasant, MI 48858 517-881-6319