as for the original quote Carrol, I don't think it had anything at all to do with happiness or even the necessity of reading and writing to human life. you got rickrolled.
At 08:38 AM 2/5/2012, Carrol Cox wrote:
>Later in the day I'll both read your original post carefully, _and_ spend
>time on working out the logic of this post. For now I'm going to take just
>one question in isolation. That will introduce error (oblique response) but
>not, I think, incorrigible error into the whole exchange.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
>On Behalf Of Dennis Claxton
>Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 5:22 AM
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org; lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Essential Reading - Hah!
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
> >From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
>
> >6 (7?) billion people. We do not know for what proportion of them reading
> >and writing (regardless of training) can or will be a _comfortable_
> >activity. And for billions now it is not in fact comfortable. Are you
> >denying them the capacity for happiness unless they learn to read and
>write?
>
>
>Come on Carrol. I'm not going to drag out my logic manual, but there are at
>least two more than one logical fallacy in this response.
>
>I'll play though. People have asked you this before and as far as I know
>you've never responded. Why did you study literature? And I'll go you one
>further. Why do people on this list, generally speaking, love your posts
>about literature better than most of your other posts (unscientific finding
>of course.)?
>
>You ask, " Why did you study literature?"
>
>Actually, I do not know the answer to this question, and I'm not really sure
>that any answer exists. I can toss out a few (unscientific) observations. In
>the 2d grade I did not consider myself a good reader (probably
>incorrectly). Then one day my mother took me to the local library, I read
>some book (I think an Oz book) & I never stopped reading. The next
>observation may be germane to the (probable) logic behind your question.
>Reading came easy to me. I mean, it _really_ came easy, so easy that for a
>couple years (and still to some extent to the very present) it distorted my
>pronunciation of many English words: for a few months at one point I went
>around referring to "IZlands" (pronouncing the first syllable as spelled).
>Now it seems to me that that _ease_ of reading, that utter unconsciousness
>of any source of difficulty in reading, is THE only relevant fact for
>purposes of this discussion.
>
>That is, the human population (focusing now only on that fraction of it who
>are 'exposed' to reading in their early days) divides into two categories,
>differentiated by the ease and unconsciousness with which they pick up a
>text and read. For one category that act NEVER becomes one of ease: it is a
>very conscious and painstaking act. One, and only one, of the sub-categories
>has been identified: dyslexia. I would assert it as a certainty that many
>other barriers to ease of reading exist.
>
>If this is true, then to impose on the entire school-age population the
>requirement that they read, that they ground their major activity for 10 or
>12 years on reading, is a deliberate act of extreme cruelety. It distorts
>their lives in ways that may well be irreparable.
>
>And whatever one can say of reading applies even more strongly to writing.
>This grounding of human life in 'reading and writing' may be one of the more
>terrible prices of capitalism.
>
>Carrol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)