[lbo-talk] catastrophism

[Carrol Cox]

Below I use the word "discomfort." One can't agree or disagree with a book
one has not read; but one can be attracted or put off by the aroma a book
puts out -- that's how everyone decides whether to read a given book or not.
That aroma comes from blurbs, reviews, casual references, etc. For example.
I read _Sartoris_ about 50 years or so ago and can't remember it. I have an
audio version of it  which is based on the 1950 paperback, & includes the
Introduction to that edition by a critic whose name I can't recall just now.
That critic argued that the book introduces the controlling theme of
Faulkner's work, namely the Compson/Sarotris/etc--Snopes contrast. Then in
listing Faulkner's later books he skips Absalom Absalom, leaping forward to
Go Down Moses. That aroma stinks. I can't trust anything that critic says,
and in fact it persuaded me that I'd better spend my time listening again to
As I Lay Dying, Sound & Fury, and Absalom Absalom then listen to Sartoris.

The blurbs to Catastrophism don't allow me to "judge" the book; I'd have to
read it to do that. But they do  create an aroma that persuades me I'd
rather listen to Moseley's Fear of the Night again rather than get a text of
Catastrophism and have Zoomtext read it to me. It is not a sensible way ot
allocate my time.

Carrol

I'm familiar in practice with the "doomsday environmentalists"; they are a
pain in the ass.

BUT -- for the most part they simply are not "part of 'the left.'" This even
showed up in the first Earth Day in 1970! Any pages devoted to them in the
book under discussion are mostly wasted pages. Jan & another local comrade
have felt it necessary to attend meetings of Vision 20; it's one of those
situations where 'we' have to support 'them,' but _they_ feel no fucking
obligation whatever to support us.

And here we run into the limit to practice determined by the point Miles,
shag, myself have tried to make over the years: Persuasion or argument fail
completely to persuade. As a practical or empirical matter only practice or
changed social conditions affect people's basic opinions. So it's a waste of
breath arguing with Vision 20 people; in fact it's counterproductive.

And there we have my core discomfort with this book; what's the point of it?
It won't change any minds; it will only be read by people who are already
leftists instead of "catastrophists," and for them it can only be a
distraction from more important reading. (And this discomfort is intensified
by the information that the authors aim at both left AND "right"
catastrophism.  Do they really think they can say anything that will reach
off the page and 'persuade' rightists not to be rightists? Absurd.

Carrol


> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
On
> Behalf Of shag carpet bomb
> Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 8:52 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org; lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] catastrophism
> 
> I can't tell much from the blurb but there were a couple of guys who wrote
> a book 2-3 years ago about doomsday thinking among environmentalists.
Their
> argument was that, empirically, when environmentalist go negative and
focus
> on how horrible everything is, it just depresses everyone and they feel
> overwhelmed, like nothing can be done. They said that, empirically, you
got
> more involvement in environmental social movements when the focus was not
> negative.
> 
> can't recall their names but I remember suggesting that Doug have them on
> the show. Maybe that is what the authors in the book are getting at?
> 
> At 06:20 PM 10/13/2012, Shane Mage wrote:
> 
> >On Oct 13, 2012, at 5:40 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
> >
> >>I wrote the intro to this excellent collection on the unfortunate
> >>thing known as catastrophism
> >
> >What is "catastrophism" anyway? As a catastrophist (one who thinks
> >that the Earth's geological and evolutionary past and the recent
> >history of the solar system and of our planet within it is marked by
> >catastrophic interplanetary disturbances and contacts) I find it hard
> >to understand this use of the word.
> >
> >The blurb for this book says: "The authors argue that those who care
> >about social justice and the environment should jettison doomsaying- even
> >as it relates to indisputably apocalyptic climate change."
> >
> >If "doomsaying" means proclaiming that absolutely nothing can be done
> >to prevent indisputably apocalyptic climate change, one wonders why
> >anyone, whether or not professing care for social justice etc., would
> >even bother to say anything at all--they would rationally have no
> >reason to do anything other than to devote all their energies to
> >preparation for whatever afterlife they envisage.  For others who
> >think there still is time to limit what would otherwise be an
> >indisputably apocalyptic process, why suggest that their calling
> >attention to its real nature, and suggesting that the proximate
> >elimination of carbon-based fuels is therefore an absolute imperative--
as
> >this blurb seems to do--is "catastrophism?"
> >
> >
> >Shane Mage
> >"Thunderbolt steers all things." Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >___________________________________
> >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)
> 
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk