Ah. Okay, I usually look at the photos full-sized on my 27-inch
monitor. I played with the views a bit and got them smaller, but never
got them three across, but perhaps I did accomplish the same thing by
counting from the beginning. Hmm. I'll have to take another look at
that shot. Thanks.
In regard to the Fry interview. I have in the past read, or been in, a
great number of debates about the issue of free will. Here in this
country, our English forefathers if we have ancestors settling in New
England in the sixteenth and seventeenth century, were probably for the
most part Calvinists who would have put Fry's arguments in those terms.
We didn't have free will because God chose those whom he would save.
Calvinist preachers, however were in short supply and were later on
replaced by Baptists and Methodists who were Arminian, that is, opposed
to Calvinism. They believed we had in all things Free Will. We could
thereafter choose to accept God, rather than the reverse.
Yes, Scientific knowledge has advanced to a point where we can declare
without qualification that we are not created equal, and Fry mentions
some of the reasons that is so. But I did a double take when I got to
the part where in past arguments God would be mentioned, and here find
him presenting the "collective unconsciousness of the people" in God's
stead. I at one time read a lot of Jung and liked his idea of the group
mind which I take to be equivalent to Fry's "collective
unconsciousness." But I was surprised that Fry would simply assume this
as accepted fact.
I did wonder to what extent Fry believes that his genes determined his
homosexuality. I have in the past read interesting arguments advancing
the idea that "circumstances" influence some to become homosexual.
There was a study years ago with rats allowed to increase in a confined
area. As the rats became overcrowded they engaged in all sorts of
deviant rat-behavior including homosexuality.
It would be unacceptable today to describe homosexuality as deviant
human behavior, but it would in the absence of a given gene, seem
equally plausible (and hopefully, politically acceptable) to conjecture
that societal circumstances might be the cause of homosexualty. Thus,
someone caused to be homosexual by circumstances in early childhood
would have this matter decided for him (or her) as much (perhaps) as if
the cause was genes.
Fry's actual words were "But we can't choose our brains, we can't choose
our genes, we can't choose our parents. There's so much." So Fry is
probably including the force of societal circumstances. I came around
to giving Fry the benefit of doubt on everything here except for the
"collective unconsciousness". Not that I disagree with the idea
exactly; although I wouldn't claim it to be an accepted fact. I still
like Jung. But I wouldn't have thought the idea widely accepted.
David Marchese doesn't comment on Fry's words directly, but Fry
commented on a great number of things in this interview and Marchese
selected just one: "Stephen Fry would like to remind you that you have
no free will."
Fry's interest, if one reads the whole article, seemed something else
entirely. He wanted to know if we like Prometheus could give fire
(enlightenment) to creatures with artificial intelligence, and how that
might work out. Perhaps though, Marchese is right, and we like he will
ignore Fry's interest in artificial intelligence and concentrate on the
degree to which we have free will -- and by inference, the degree to
which Fry's homosexuality was determined by agencies beyond his control.
Lawrence
On 5/3/2021 4:23 PM, david ritchie wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
*From: *david ritchie <profdritchie@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:profdritchie@xxxxxxxxx>>
*Subject: **Re: [lit-ideas] Hereabouts*
*Date: *May 3, 2021 at 4:23:03 PM PDT
*To: *Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
On May 3, 2021, at 4:16 PM, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:They were displayed to me in rows of three. I simply counted from the start. The image I have in mind has two dogs quite far away in a kind of an L shape. For me the composition was excellent.
David,
You wrote, "As for the photos. To me number twenty-two is perfect.'
I don't see a number 22. To see the number I assigned the photos you have to click on the little "i". Then click on "show more."
Others have recommended the Stephen Frye piece to me. I’ll take a look when I’m more ready for tomorrow’s class. This work stuff gets in the way of leisure.
David Ritchie
