Proof that life is essentially horrible – not that any proof is needed – is the fact that death is almost always painful and difficult. The demon who was designing existence realised that, if he did not create such a condition, people would simply kill themselves en masse. Since life is so blatantly vile and squalid, not only is this buffer against suicide put in place (and the idea that it's an easy way out is ridiculous; so far I've found the easy way out to be to go on living) but the knowledge of precisely what happens after death is made utterly inaccessible, so that our fears overcome our need for an end to it all.
That it is always better never to be born – this sadness can never be erased from the human soul.
The most convincing of world fatihs, unfortunately, are those whose aim is to disappear from the cycle of existence entirely – their end goal, not any kind of incarnation, but its opposite. Another testament to the unspeakable foulness of existence.
Robert Aickman writes: "One reason that we do not wish to survive is that there is no longer anything to survive for. Man does not live by bread alone, if only because ordinary day-to-day living is mainly horrible; so that to think otherwise is a major neurosis… If life is justified at all, it is, and always has been, by the belief in, and hope for, 'a world elsewhere'… I believe in life after death… because I can make no sense otherwise of the tragic lives people lead; except, perhaps, upon the heretical, though far from illogical, thesis that the world is a construct of a devil, an idea which would be unpopular with many of my readers."
I agree with all of this except that my position around the 'if' ("If life is justified at all") seems to be closer to the answer that it is not justified at all than does Aickman's.
Before I was born, all was well. After I am dead, all, I think, will be similarly well. The trouble is this entirely unnecessary and unlooked-for bit in between. Why can't we just cut out the middle bit?
I hate those who believe they have all the answers; some of us are genuinely struggling with the questions.
I hate those comfortable with what seems the only solution to the human problem – the extinguishing of the human soul so that there is no you and me either to worry about ourselves or to love one another. This seems to me a solution like that proposed in The Invasion of the Bodysnatchers: Remove all human emotion and there is no longer crime, war, mental illness and so on.
I hate those who seem never to have known anything other than what they refer to as 'reality'.
I am puzzled by the fact that I have the capacity to hate a universe for which I should logically have no means of comparison with anything better.
The fact that unspeakable evil seems always to triumph in this world, and never to be held to account, I see as a minor expression of the basic spirit of the universe itself, to misquote Aickman, that the universe is the construct of a devil.
That a devil would allow in this universe things and people that I can find it in my heart to love is, again, puzzling. The obvious answer is that these things and people are here in order to be crushed and mocked, but where the devil did this devil ever get them from?
For the sake of these few people and things, I, too, approve of the idea of a world elsewhere, though I remain puzzled, since it seems to me that the moment some god (or devil, which is the same thing) gets its stinking hands on a world elsewhere, it must be ruined, and I cannot see how either void or god would allow something not of their own nature or creation. So what and where is elsewhere? One thing seems certain – it's never here.
And so…
Why be here at all? Why not be nowhere, which at least might – perhaps? – in some way include or touch upon elsewhere?
I hate all masters.
I hate those who can only jeer and snigger at all masters.
These, to me, seem the same.
This morning, on the radio, Kathy Lettes (I'm not sure I have spelt that right) informed us that marriage is better for men than for women, which is why more divorces are now being prosecuted by women than men, and why marriages are now, to quote, "lower than Britney Spears's bikini line". All this, of course, is very sad (as is the fact that Kathy Lettes is a successful writer), but only a symptom of a wider truth. I say that, in the same way, human existence is better for gods, or better for the void, than it is for humans. Are there not 'irreconcilable differences' here? Are we not, increasingly, to prosecute for divorce from existence? If only we could take the other option, and never 'marry' in the first place.
Yes, we’re two of a kind, it would seem. Damn that Master and his evil machinations.
Peter A Leonard writes:
“I hate all masters”You are at one with Dr. Who on this. He, at the very least, dislikes “The Master’s” methods and designs.Kindest regards.:jester:
Peter A Leonard writes:
“Proof that life is essentially horrible – not that any proof is needed – is the fact that death is almost always painful and difficult.”Often true, though just as often it’s unexpected and sudden.:rip: “ The demon who was designing existence realised that, if he did not create such a condition, people would simply kill themselves en masse.”Sorry to appear dense here, but do you mean by “such a condition” a “painful and difficult death”? It’s not clear to me exactly your point here, dear chap, but I’m sure the fault must lie with me, my comprehension levels are questionable.However you seem to be saying that in the condition of existence (if such a condition exists, so to speak, but that’s a separate argument), if death had no part to play in the termination of life, in other words living things aspired towards immortality, we would all commit suicide?If I understand you right (and I’m not sure I do) I can only wonder what leads you to such a conclusion?I also find questionable the argument that existence was “designed” – by a demon or anything else, come to that. Life seems far too random to have been “designed”? “Since life is so blatantly vile and squalid, not only is this buffer against suicide put in place (and the idea that it’s an easy way out is ridiculous; so far I’ve found the easy way out to be to go on living)”Again, are you implying that a “painful and difficult death” is the solitary buffer against suicide? We don’t kill ourselves “en masse” because we are going to die (anyway)?Again when you say “Since life is so blatantly vile and squalid” is this an objective or subjective statement? Are you claiming your life to be “vile and squalid”, or is it a comment on all life – e.g. the blades of grass on my lawn, the sparrow drinking from the birdbath, the ivy growing up my wall?Speaking totally selfishly my life isn’t particularly “vile and squalid” (to me) although at times it tends to be “blatant”, but then perfection is something we aspire to attain, isn’t it, fully aware we’ll fail in that very worthwhile aspiration. “but the knowledge of precisely what happens after death is made utterly inaccessible, so that our fears overcome our need for an end to it all.”Because we don’t know what (if anything) follows death, we don’t kill ourselves, yes? Fear of the unknown and unknowable over comes our fear of life?But suppose some of us believe there’s only one life, it’s not a rehearsal or a dry run, it’s the here and now, I’m goin’ to do it, and make the most of it I can, because afterwards – there’s NOTHING. What then?Regards.:jester:
Peter A Leonard writes:
“That it is always better never to be born – this sadness can never be erased from the human soul.”Surely this must be a subjective comment? If not, where is your evidence for such an all encompassing assumption? “Robert Aickman writes: “One reason that we do not wish to survive is that there is no longer anything to survive for. Man does not live by bread alone, if only because ordinary day-to-day living is mainly horrible; so that to think otherwise is a major neurosis… If life is justified at all, it is, and always has been, by the belief in, and hope for, ‘a world elsewhere’… I believe in life after death… because I can make no sense otherwise of the tragic lives people lead; except, perhaps, upon the heretical, though far from illogical, thesis that the world is a construct of a devil, an idea which would be unpopular with many of my readers.””Now, let’s be honest, Aickman’s “golden age” was pre 1914, the year of his birth. He was a bit of an elitist with a number of “issues” psychologically, who found the modern world confusing and pointless (based on an inherent belief in the pointlessness of his own life), and engaged in wish-fulfillment with his belief in “life after death” which in turn had developed out of his “classical” education and Freudian psychology. “I hate those who believe they have all the answers; some of us are genuinely struggling with the questions.”I don’t think anyone has (or can have) all the answers. But what is the question? And is it really of any importance?“I hate those comfortable with what seems the only solution to the human problem – the extinguishing of the human soul so that there is no you and me either to worry about ourselves or to love one another.”Which is a view in part I can subscribe to, although I’m far from convinced that the actions to which you refer are anything but a manifestation of the greed or self-aggrandisement or blindness of the individuals who hold such a conclusion as credible. “The fact that unspeakable evil seems always to triumph in this world, and never to be held to account, I see as a minor expression of the basic spirit of the universe itself, to misquote Aickman, that the universe is the construct of a devil.”Do you feel the “Universe” is an entity in itself? It has “spirit”? Do you mean this as a form of self-determination on the part of the “Universe”, or as the possession of “soul” by the entity “Universe? Do you think an ant foraging far and wide and killing as it goes, understands “Evil” as a concept? I must confess that in this context, I’m not too sure I understand exactly what you mean by “Evil”, or “Devil”:devil: come to that? The Christian devil based on earlier, primitive saturnalia? Or some other spiritual force, the effect of which can be described (at least by some, if not all) as “Evil”? Regards. :jester:
Sorry to appear dense here, but do you mean by “such a condition” a “painful and difficult death”?Yes.However you seem to be saying that in the condition of existence (if such a condition exists, so to speak, but that’s a separate argument), if death had no part to play in the termination of life, in other words living things aspired towards immortality, we would all commit suicide?No, I meant that death isn’t really the easy way out; if it were easy then it would be a way out that I suspect we would all take. (Tumbleweed?)I also find questionable the argument that existence was “designed” – by a demon or anything else, come to that. Life seems far too random to have been “designed”?I’m not really sure how anything can be random. I’ve tried being random myself. It seems to be impossible. However, I don’t really believe in design, no. I am speaking in parables. Or something like that.Again, are you implying that a “painful and difficult death” is the solitary buffer against suicide? We don’t kill ourselves “en masse” because we are going to die (anyway)?Not the only buffer, but the main one.Again when you say “Since life is so blatantly vile and squalid” is this an objective or subjective statement? It can only ever be subjective.Are you claiming your life to be “vile and squalid”, or is it a comment on all life – e.g. the blades of grass on my lawn, the sparrow drinking from the birdbath, the ivy growing up my wall?You do, indeed, paint a very squalid picture of sleazy sparrows, insidious ivy and vicious grass. I suppose, though, I am claiming that all life as filtered through my set of perceptions. However, you might notice that I qualify this later in the original blog entry.But suppose some of us believe there’s only one life, it’s not a rehearsal or a dry run, it’s the here and now, I’m goin’ to do it, and make the most of it I can, because afterwards – there’s NOTHING.
What then?Believe me, I am very, very familiar with this, and tried to live it for at least a decade of my vile and squalid life, but it consistently failed to work for me, and, in fact, proved counter-productive. If it works for someone else, that’s great, as long as they don’t then try and make it work for everyone.Of course, there’s also a sense in which I agree with all of that, but only because words are so… iridescent?Surely this must be a subjective comment? If not, where is your evidence for such an all encompassing assumption? Subjective, yes, but I’m afraid there’s plenty of evidence. The search for human happiness goes on, does it not? Has anyone ever been able to claim they have found the answer in a way that is straightforwardly convincing? Now, let’s be honest, Aickman’s “golden age” was pre 1914, the year of his birth. He was a bit of an elitist with a number of “issues” psychologically, who found the modern world confusing and pointless (based on an inherent belief in the pointlessness of his own life), and engaged in wish-fulfillment with his belief in “life after death” which in turn had developed out of his “classical” education and Freudian psychology.Well, he appears to be an elitist-with-issues with whom I have a great deal in common. I find his ‘The Wine-Dark Sea’ to be a model of spiritual and intellectual clarity, as such things are expressed in fiction. That, of course, is not to say that I promise to agree with everything he ever thought or said. Nonetheless, when a chord is struck, it is struck. I don’t think anyone has (or can have) all the answers. But what is the question? And is it really of any importance?Perhaps it is of no importance, unless one is already imprisoned, and then the question becomes, how can I get out? Or else, how can I live while still imprisoned?Which is a view in part I can subscribe to, although I’m far from convinced that the actions to which you refer are anything but a manifestation of the greed or self-aggrandisement or blindness of the individuals who hold such a conclusion as credible.Ah, I had meant this part as a confession of my own weakness of character in being uncomfortable at the thought of the only thing that might save us. The heart, apparently, is deceitful and wicked above all things, and perhaps I listen to it rather too much.Do you feel the “Universe” is an entity in itself? It has “spirit”? Do you mean this as a form of self-determination on the part of the “Universe”, or as the possession of “soul” by the entity “Universe? Do you think an ant foraging far and wide and killing as it goes, understands “Evil” as a concept? I must confess that in this context, I’m not too sure I understand exactly what you mean by “Evil”, or “Devil”:devil: come to that? The Christian devil based on earlier, primitive saturnalia? Or some other spiritual force, the effect of which can be described (at least by some, if not all) as “Evil”?Well, there are a great many questions here, and I’m not sure that I can answer them all, if any of them. Let’s see. Is the universe an entity? I think you could call it that, yes. Does it have spirit? Well, it at least contains something that could be referred to as ‘spirit’. Self-determination? Let me put it this way, human beings do at least experience a conflict between their own interests and that of the universe. I have no idea whether an ants understands evil. It’s possible that it might comprehend evil in some way, as animals sometimes, I believe, know not to eat poisoned food. If there is a devil, then, as I have intimated, it would resemble, to the point of identity, the Christian God. Then again, there is ambiguity here. The horned god or gods on which the Christian Devil is said to be based are often associated with fertility, or they might be, like your horned jester, tricksters of some kind (the god Loki comes to mind, though I don’t remember him having horns). The trickster I see as simply a form of the irrational, a servant of chaos. The Devil to which I refer in my blog entry would more likely be the opposite of this – a force of oppressive order. My definition of evil is – on the surface at least – quite simple, and will no doubt break down under scrutiny because of that. Evil is the impersonal. To be a personal being in an impersonal universe is to experience ‘evil’. But I’m sure there are other defintions of the word that might be more useful or more comprehensive. This is simply the way that I notice myself using the word when I refer to things on a cosmic scale.
Do you feel the “Universe” is an entity in itself? It has “spirit”? Do you mean this as a form of self-determination on the part of the “Universe”, or as the possession of “soul” by the entity “Universe?By the way, maybe I’m misreading your intentions in asking these questions, but I sense you’re suspicious of any notion that the universe might be a living entity. Allow me to address this.The universe contains consciousness, why should it, therefore, not actually be conscious? At the very least, we are the consciousness of the universe – though a troubled consciousness – and that consciousness may well have other aspects.The knee-jerk reaction that has become prevalent in the west that everything but human beings is dead – related to Descartes’ idea that animals have no soul – is nothing but an unquestioned prejudice.I’m afraid I can’t give the source of this, but I do remember reading, or in some way encountering, a quote attributed to a Native American, along that lines that the Human Beings believe all things to be alive, the animals, plants, rivers, rocks and so on, whereas White Man believes that everything is dead – rocks, rivers, trees, animals, and even other humans. Western materialism is dead and it is Death. That is why it is destroying the world. It is steeped in death. Not only is it inimical to life, however, the rational materialism of the West is also ridiculous on its own terms. Rational? I think not.What is artificial intelligence? Is this not an attempt to create consciousness? Consciousness is deemed, ultimately, mechanistic. This means that human beings and computers, for instance, are basically the same. But here we begin to detect the secret agenda of rational materialism, which is to degrade all life. Maybe computers and humans are the same. Is a human being alive? Most materialists would concede that they are, even though subconsciously they believe otherwise. Then a computer can also be alive. And if a computer can be alive, why not this mechanistic universe of theirs, too? But the rational materialists only want to equate humans with computers in order to degrade, so that consciousness is ‘merely’ an epiphenomenon, hoping to prove that as if they thereby prove that humans are also a ‘merely’. In this degradation the materialists are determined. Doctors are schooled in it. Do you know that there are revues put on at medical schools by the students, and, I suppose, the staff, to which none are allowed who are not of the medical fraternity? Why? Because ordinary people would be shocked at the attitudes doctors have towards their patients that are expressed at such revues. What attitudes? My guess is that the doctors really see little difference between their patients and the cadavers on which they pratice dissection.To the rationalist materlists all things are dead: Rocks, trees, rivers, animals, and even other human beings.
Peter A Leonard writes:
“By the way, maybe I’m misreading your intentions in asking these questions, but I sense you’re suspicious of any notion that the universe might be a living entity.” No, no, dear chap, not so. I posed the question (my apologies for so many) simply to clarify the “thrust”, if you will, of your blog entry. When you mentioned “the spirit” of the Universe, I was unsure if you meant this metaphorically or did in fact conceive the Universe as an entity – or, as you now suggest, a “consciousness”. “The universe contains consciousness, why should it, therefore, not actually be conscious?” Why indeed not? Without bogging myself in the quagmire of quantum mechanics and bubble theory it does seem more than likely that “our” Universe is only one of many billions of Universes. Could they be “conscious”? Well, yes, they could. “The knee-jerk reaction that has become prevalent in the west that everything but human beings is dead – related to Descartes’ idea that animals have no soul – is nothing but an unquestioned prejudice.”A nonsense, I’d agree. However the original determination that animals lacked spirit or soul was the early Christian church. See for example Matt. 25: 46 in the New Testament where it’s explained animals do not possess eternal spirit. This is confirmed in Eccl. 3: 21, cp. 12: 7 for example, where we’re told animals return to the dust while the spirit of man continues. In the old testament too, animals were lacking in “eternal spirit”.In part your criticisms seemed aimed at materialism. The father of modern Materialism was Hobbes, who accepted the theory of Epicurus, and “reduced all spirits either to phantoms of the imagination or to matter in a highly rarefied state.” While Newtonian physics taught us to regard matter, not as inert and passive, but as instinct with force.“I’m afraid I can’t give the source of this, but I do remember reading, or in some way encountering, a quote attributed to a Native American, along that lines that the Human Beings believe all things to be alive, the animals, plants, rivers, rocks and so on, whereas White Man believes that everything is dead – rocks, rivers, trees, animals, and even other humans.”It’s an interesting modern myth that the Native American Indian was “finely attuned to nature and its balance.” They weren’t. One could quote various species hunted to extinction by them, for example, California’s flightless sea duck, wiped out blitzkrieg fashion. Certainly they may have believed the sea duck to have ‘spirit’, but such a belief didn’t prevent them exterminating the species. Ultimately the Native Americans were and are human beings carrying all the baggage that entails, which sadly often includes a lack of forethought or resources management. I have great sympathy for the Thai people. Thailand is a land of ghosts. There everything has “spirit” trees, for instance, larger trees especially should be shown great respect. Ancestral ghosts must be consulted when making any new, important undertakings; female ghosts prefer the silent solitude of a banana grove, while their male counterparts may take up residence in one of the abandoned, stilted, riverside dwellings. In Thailand exorcisms are commonplace. Most Thai people avoid old objects, shunning items that may have belonged to one now deceased. They fear the spirit of the departed attached to that object. Much better this than the tired old ‘Pocahontas version’ of the Native Americans.“Western materialism is dead and it is Death. That is why it is destroying the world. It is steeped in death.” If western materialism were “dead”, it wouldn’t be destroying the world? Something else would be responsible, something “living” or at least active, surely?“What is artificial intelligence? Is this not an attempt to create consciousness? Consciousness is deemed, ultimately, mechanistic. This means that human beings and computers, for instance, are basically the same.” I have never heard anyone “in the trade” so to speak suggest that computers and human beings are the same? I have often heard it posited that one day computers will become so complex they may rival then overtake the human brain. One day they will be much more compact, possibly organic but more likely based around liquid technologies.The world in a thimble of water.“But here we begin to detect the secret agenda of rational materialism, which is to degrade all life. Maybe computers and humans are the same. Is a human being alive? Most materialists would concede that they are, even though subconsciously they believe otherwise. Then a computer can also be alive. And if a computer can be alive, why not this mechanistic universe of theirs, too?” I’m sure one day there will exist AI’s that are demonstrably alive and certainly aware. It may well be that our constructs will be so much greater than ourselves – our one hope then must be that our “machines” don’t see us as a problem to be eradicated.“Do you know that there are revues put on at medical schools by the students, and, I suppose, the staff, to which none are allowed who are not of the medical fraternity?”Yes, I do, actually. And while not of the medical fraternity myself, I have attended a couple of these “occasions” which tend to be very frivolous and somewhat drunken:drunk: . And, yes, the behavior in my experience has been outrageous – shocking to “ordinary people”, indeed, because of the crude, usually sexual innuendoes and absurdist behavior. Does this make them part of a materialist conspiracy? Don’t think so. Does it make them bad doctors (bearing in mind we’re talking students here)? Not particularly. Like all students they like to let their hair down now and again. Ultimately the medical profession is like any other, there are good doctors and there are bad; good nurses and bad.My criticism of doctors within the UK is they treat symptoms not patients. That’s their biggest fault. Regards.:jester:
Just quick answers for now:A nonsense, I’d agree. However the original determination that animals lacked spirit or soul was the early Christian church. See for example Matt. 25: 46 in the New Testament where it’s explained animals do not possess eternal spirit. This is confirmed in Eccl. 3: 21, cp. 12: 7 for example, where we’re told animals return to the dust while the spirit of man continues. In the old testament too, animals were lacking in “eternal spirit”.Yes, maybe Descartes was simply responsible for firming this attitude up into the idea of animals being biological machines, the attitude soon springing up in the wake of this, that humans, being animals also, also must be biological machines.It’s an interesting modern myth that the Native American Indian was “finely attuned to nature and its balance.” They weren’t. One could quote various species hunted to extinction by them, for example, California’s flightless sea duck, wiped out blitzkrieg fashion. Certainly they may have believed the sea duck to have ‘spirit’, but such a belief didn’t prevent them exterminating the species..Yes, I had (or, rather, have) no idea how far it was/is really true that the Native Americans were exemplars of ecological custodianship based on animistic reverence for nature, but at least, even if only a hypothetical attitude, it provides a contrast to that of materialism. Incidentally, while reading Six Records of a Floating Life, by Shen Fu, I came across a fascinating allusion, explained in a footnote, that contained some quite ancient Chinese advice on the subject of the custodianship of nature, to do with how much fish one should catch, how many trees one should chop down and so forth. Unfortunately, such things are never as representative as one would wish, as the recent extinction of the Yangtze river dolphin would seem to testify. Of course, many, many people coming from the East to the West, having been impressed by the nobility of Christian teaching and so on, are, I believe, sadly disappointed.I have never heard anyone “in the trade” so to speak suggest that computers and human beings are the same? I have often heard it posited that one day computers will become so complex they may rival then overtake the human brain. One day they will be much more compact, possibly organic but more likely based around liquid technologies.
The world in a thimble of water.Those with a rational world-view seem to me very keen on making human/computer comparisons. There’s a well-known speech by Douglas Adams in which he suggests that his baby daughter is a computer that he observes at times ‘booting up’ in some act of cognition. Richard Dawkins, in one of his books tells us that sycamore seeds (okay, not human, but organic, anyway) are floppy discs, and goes so far as to say, “This is not a metaphor.” The whole idea of consciousness being an epiphenomenon is based, unless I misunderstand totally, which is, of course, possible, on the idea that the mechanisms of intelligence in a computer only have to achieve a certain level of complexity before they attain real intelligence, which I believe means consciousness, implying that the difference between computers and humans is not qualitative.Yes, I do, actually. And while not of the medical fraternity myself, I have attended a couple of these “occasions” which tend to be very frivolous and somewhat drunken:drunk: . And, yes, the behavior in my experience has been outrageous – shocking to “ordinary people”, indeed, because of the crude, usually sexual innuendoes and absurdist behavior. .Personally, the scene you describe does not sound so very shocking to me. I have also long been aware of a ‘gallows humour’ prevalent in the medical fraternity that perhaps many people in the general public would be uncomfortable with, which I would not. What I am talking about is something else, but I may be mistaken in the assumptions made based on information given from an inside source, and a very lovely and wonderful inside source, I might add, too.
Peter A Leonard writes:
“Richard Dawkins, in one of his books tells us that sycamore seeds (okay, not human, but organic, anyway) are floppy discs…”I believe there’ll soon be a time when AI’s will be “organic”. Where we perhaps differ (or I differ with anyone holding a mechanistic, therefore inferior viewpoint)is in my perception of this as evolution in operation, and the AI growing in complexity and attaining “life” in its own right. Not something to be looked down on. But an equal.Anyhow, thanks Quentin for troubling to answer my questions. It’s been very interesting.Regards.:jester:
Peter A Leonard writes:
“Well, he appears to be an elitist-with-issues with whom I have a great deal in common. I find his ‘The Wine-Dark Sea’ to be a model of spiritual and intellectual clarity, as such things are expressed in fiction. That, of course, is not to say that I promise to agree with everything he ever thought or said. Nonetheless, when a chord is struck, it is struck.”Regarding Aickman I must stress I’m a great fan of his work. His story “The Wine Dark Sea” is excellent (as is the later collection of his stories issued under that title). Certainly his “world view” as expressed in that story is both attractive and persuasive; and in its tone one senses many resonances with Hesiod’s “Works and Days” (even slightly his “The Theogony” with its creatrix goddesses Chaos and Earth), especially his harking after an earlier, Golden age in disgust at the Iron age, today, the corrupt present (obviously this is similar to both the Hindu and Buddhist concepts of the Kali Yuga). In making my comments I had in mind more the Aickman of “The River Runs Uphill” where he plainly states:”My own matured view is that democracy works much better when it is not total. I believe that the vote should be not a right but an acquisition: that, to qualify, the applicant should be able both to pass a general knowledge test and to prove that he possesses a certain amount of personal property; thus showing that he has at least a minimum both of intelligence and of character.” Now while I may have a certain sympathy for Aickman’s reasons for such a suggestion, I fail to understand how the possession of property imparts “character”? Nor how it qualifies one individual to have preference over another when it comes to the question of suffrage? Certainly this concept can be traced back to Aristotle (if not Plato, in fact), and was used to justify the exclusion of the black majority from the voting system in both Rhodesia (as it then was) and South Africa. Most black people couldn’t possibly pass the exam, let alone meet the possession of property criteria. In the UK it was the representation of the people act in 1918 at the end of the first world war that lifted property restrictions from people voting, increasing the electorate from 7.7 million to 21.4 million. Now, as I mentioned, Aickman’s “golden age” was pre-1914, he saw everything coming after that date as “evil”. Hence his desire to restrict the vote. He hated mass education. In fact I think he may have hated people in mass – while liking the select few as individuals.Yet, this aside, he was a great writer (if greatly misunderstood) and very underrated today. I suspect he would never have been happy with a “mass” sale of his work. He wrote, as he saw it, for the few. To understand his work fully, the reader must be in possession of a “classical” education. It is both his strength and his weakness.Regards. (No electrons were harmed in the creation and transmission of this electronic communication):jester:
Will try and answer some of these points later. Thanks.