A very nice tribute, Torgeir. The extent of your historical Archives is
astonishing. Even if somewhat slanted/selective :). Thank you for
sharing these historic moments. Bob will be very appreciative
(posthumously of course.)
Cheers, Walter
---
On 2020-04-30 10:24, Torgeir Fjeld wrote:
The Socratic Robert Paul (d. 2019) was a contributing member of this------------------------------------------------------------------
listserv, _Lit-Ideas_, from its inception in March, 2004. He had was
on the advisory board of its precursor, _Phil-Lit_, which had been
founded by the philosopher Dennis Dutton in March 1994 as a supplement
to the journal _Philosophy and Literature_ (Johns Hopkins University
Press). After a debacle in the aftermath of 9/11 the moderator and
technical owner of _Phil-Lit_, D.G. Meyers, decided to close the list
and take it off-line. Two initiatives emerged from the debris:
_Lit-Ideas_ and the rival listserv _Theoria_. While the latter from
the beginning attracted many of Meyers’s sympathisers it was Robert
Paul who became the leading philosophical figure of _Lit-Ideas_.
What happened in the early years of _Lit-Ideas_, and with what right
can we attribute Robert Paul a key role in the direction of this
listserv as we see it today, 16 years after its initial launch?
Let’s try to assess these questions by looking at _one month_ in the
early life of _Lit-Ideas_. From the outset March appears to be a key
month in the genealogies of these online initiatives: it was in March
1994 that _Lit-Idea_’s precursor was founded, and it was in that
same month, ten years later, that _Phil-Lit_ morphed into our present
incarnation. Furthermore, _Freelists_, the host of _Lit-Idea_, returns
March 2006 as the most prominent result in a search for “Robert
Paul” in the listserv archives. Subsequently, in the following we
will read some key posts by Paul from this month in order to give an
overall assessment of his contribution to _Lit-Ideas_.
March 2006 was a busy month for _Lit-Idea_, featuring 1136 posts, of
which Robert Paul contributed 81. A wide array of themes were
discussed, such as cars, political matters, including feminism and
immigration, military history, Rumsfeld, Fukuyama and Hitchens,
literature and poetry, the Buddha, and the problem of evil. Many
posters took an engaged position in ongoing debates. Among the
contributors this month we find present-days subscribers, such as Paul
Stone, David Richie, and Ursula Stange, and participants who either
have departed from the list or are simply silent for the time being.
In this latter category we find names such as Peter D. Junger, Judith
Evans, and Mike Geary. Robert Paul participated in many, but not all,
threads.
In the first thread of the month David Richie set out to discuss cars,
particularly Audis, what it is like to drive them, fix them, and
assess their value. Paul informed his audience that
We have a 1998 A6, which David probably doesn’t remember having
ridden two blocks in last year. (He may have been overcome by the
oxygen-enhancement system or by the genuine vellum seat covers.)
Quickly moving from one topic to the other Paul then got embroiled in
a discussion with Eric Yost on Donald Rumsfeld and a dispute
concerning U.S. military acquisitions. Paul begun the exchange by
posting an article from the _Village Voice_ without additional
comment. Then, as Eric posted an item from the internet in response
Paul would launch into a more detailed commentary, including an
assessment of various posters’ rhetorical techniques. The tone of
his post indicates how hot-headed debate could be on _Lit-Ideas_ at
the time:
You seem to believe that there’s this vast Communist/Capitalist
conspiracy, led by Mike Geary, with fellow travelers [sic] like me
and those running dogs at the Village Voice who like nothing better
than to pick on poor defenseless dupes like W [George W. Bush] and
Rummy [Donald Rumsfeld], just because we’re… because we’re…
just into hating them, I guess. Oh, blind to truth! The lobbyists
contrive it all.
Yost would not let go of the topic, however, and in his inimitable
style eventually opened up for Paul’s sense of irony and wit. Eric
had asked “Why didn’t MacArthur commit hara-kiri when the
Philippines fell?” Paul seized on the opportunity, and in a riposte
on March 11 he answered that it was
Because they wouldn’t let him have anything sharp. If your point
is that ritual disembowelment is not part of Western culture, it
should perhaps be pointed out that after Japan’s surrender, Tojo
tried to commit suicide—not hara-kiri (seppuku)—by shooting
himself in the chest. He failed, and was executed by the Allies.
Later in the month Paul and the list would become more cheerful.
Poetry is added to the ongoing topics of debate, as is linguistic
novelty-items. Paul later noted that while the word of March 2, 2006,
had been “mulligrubs” [Southern U.S.term for _ill temper_,
_colic_, or _grumpiness_] Paul himself “Don’t get ’em. Happy
birthday.”
Paul’s seeming admission would give Yost occasion to display _his_
brilliance. Yost offered that it was _mimetic rivalry_ that lay at the
core of Nathaniel West’s _The Day of the Locust_, a 1939 novel where
a young artist from the Yale School of Fine Arts, Tod Hackett, is
hired by a Hollywood studio to do scene design and painting. Paul
responded curt that “I used to think Nathaniel West was the Next Big
Thing (_avant la lettre_) but I’m not sure I could read him
again.”
Julie Rene Kruger brought a more light-hearted atmosphere to the list
when she asked how it could be possible that, according to media
reports, the United Nations was about to outsource some of their
functions. To whom could a global organisation outsource something?
Paul is quick on the draw stating that the reported approach is
so 20th century. The next big thing is off-planeting. What do you
think those little spy bots are doing on Mars? I mean, who cares if
there’s water up there, unless...
Paul signed off with “Robert Paul, Department of Astronomy and
Astrology, Mutton College,” his alter ego in times of jest. Paul
Stone would then go on to suggest that when we can’t be with the one
we love we should love the one we’re with. It gave Paul occasion to
launch into verse, quoting from E.Y. Harburg’s libretto to the
musical _Finian’s Rainbow_:
For Sharon I’m carin’,
But Susan I’m choosin’
I’m faithful to whos’n is here.
When I’m not near the girl I love,
I love the girl I’m near.
Towards the end of the month, possibly tired with all the jostling and
jesting, Paul would suggest that a discussion of a “Resolution to
censure George W. Bush” might provide “a refreshing change from
euro-bashing, perhaps.”
Paul engaged a wide range of subscribers and a vast array of topics on
multiple registers. He could be sincere, jocular, ironic, assertive,
and, perhaps, tired and a bit impatient. However, there were at least
two important posts from Paul during March 2006 that we haven't
discussed yet. One of them gives a detailed view of Paul’s
perspective on what the nature of a listserv might be, how to run it,
and what purpose it should serve, and the other provides an unrivalled
insight into Paul’s unique philosophy. Let us look at them in turn.
On March 5, Paul entered into a discussion with Ursula Stange on the
schism that lead to the creation of _Lit-Ideas_. Paul reminded her
what it was, in his view, that led to the demise of _Phil-Lit_:
Phil-Lit was not exactly destroyed: it was unilaterally shut down by
David Meyers (against the wishes of the advisory board (or whatever
we were called) which had been formed to prevent his doing just
that, and to prevent his intemperate removal of listmembers who
offended him. But he had the keys, despite what had been agreed.
Paul then goes on to recapitulate the final years of _Phil-Lit_. In
Paul’s view _Phil-Lit_, through its administration, was a list
better equipped to handle strife and unruly emotions that _Lit-Ideas_:
After 9/11, what had been in fact, not just in name, a list for the
discussion of ideas, became highly politicized. Tempers flared,
feeling ran high, and personal attacks were common. It was not
pleasant. Many despaired. Yet the list survived: people like Chris
Bruce continued to send posts on Rilke, and Kant; things were
discussed amid the shouting. But there were never, at any time, on
Phil-Lit, continued contentless exchanges of sheer, vituperative
misunderstanding such as we saw here not long ago, a flurry of posts
that would have been unthinkable on Phil-Lit, even on its worst
days.
How was _Phil-Lit_ organised, and how did this organisation, in
Paul’s view, serve to generate a more calm and civilised tone? Paul
argues that the vitriol on _Lit-Ideas_ of the early months of 2006
would have been unthinkable not because nobody ever told anybody
else to fuck off, but because after the first such post, The Chider
would have (off list) gently (at first) told the party of the first
part to cool it, please. And after continued infractions the Board
might have discussed unsubbing him or her.
Paul would conclude by positioning himself against the view that it
was the _moderation function_ that was the demise of _Phil-Lit_:
It was not moderation of Phil-Lit which eventually killed it but the
very thing you seem in favor of, viz., the free reign of rudeness
and intolerance of the plainest sort. This is not a bar. But if it
were, one might wonder why anybody would want to remain in a place
where everybody was shouting ’Eat shit, you motherfucking
asshole,’ without pause. That’s not discussion. It’s not the
free expression of ideas. It’s just noise. I’ll go down the
street.
Do we not here find a complete approach to online discussion forums?
In his post Paul suggested formats, topics, regulatory mechanisms, and
how a listserve’s purpose at times rubs up against its limits.
In a similar tour de force of reasoning Paul was spurred on by a post
by Marlena Boggs to reflect on the nature of time travel. Marlena had
asked where we would go if we could travel in time, and how long we
would want to stay. Paul responded that he would go to
Room H3, King’s College, Cambridge, the evening of October 25,
1946. I’d stay for ten minutes, to settle for myself the question
of whether Wittgenstein threatened Popper with a poker, who said
what, etc. I’d take a camera loaded with high speed film, and
invite Donal [McEvoy] to come along.
However,
Travel through time seems easy in the books and films where it
happens; but if I’m asked where I’d like to go, and when, I must
think of the present ’me’ in situations in which either there
was as yet no ’me,’ or in situations in which there would be a
former ’me’ whose thoughts and perceptions would have to be
considered, and this raises problems.
I wouldn’t like to be ’me’ at age five, whatever that might
mean, because NOW I no longer (for the most part) perceive the world
as I did THEN, and to wish to return to that way of perceiving it is
to wish away the experiences of a lifetime in such a way that for
’me,’ ’me-at-five’ is no longer me. If I were to wish to
return to the world as ’me’ (me NOW) as it was in 1936, there
would be… Who? My parents and grandparents and no five-year-old
’me’? Or a five-year-old ’me’ who was not me? No wonder
Leibniz thought that there were complete individual concepts
containing all that one was and would be, in infinite array.
Time travel as ’me-NOW’ strikes me as ultimately incoherent,
however appealing it may seem at first.
Robert Paul
Department of Impossible Dreams
Mutton College
Thank you for your many and spirited contributions, Robert Paul. May
you rest in peace.
Torgeir Fjeld, PhD
Poland
