Rene Girard's Je vois Satan tomber comme l'eclair

This is a book that I can honestly say I didn't understand. I read the introduction of the argument, which is that the real crux of sin and conflict in human life is envy of what the other person has, and that this applies in all spheres of human interaction. I thought he could have been really a lot clearer in his key argument. Nonetheless, there are certain flavorful quote. On p. 250, he says that some anthropological extra-terrestrial would think that there once existed a society much superior to ours in terms of compassion, so much so that it left an imperishable memory. What has actually happened is that humanity has this long-term aspiration and we always reach for it, and never touch it. And then on P. 271, "Heidegger a interdit l'etude de ces textes sans jamais desavouer leur contenu." Heidegger has prohibited the studies of his texts, without withdrawing anything in their content.

Barth's Calvin

It was an really interesting book, in part because Barth gives a biography of Calvin. There are also some quotes I'm interested in relating, from Theology o John Calvin. On p.22, speaking of Thomas Aquinas: "We have in his case a demonstration how often even the greatest among us, precisely in fulfilling their deepest intentions, often do not know what they are doing. The reformers engaged in close combat with late scholastics of the age of decline, about whom we say nothing today, when all the time behind these, and biding his time, stood their main adversary Thomas..." on p. 36, in talking about medieval theology, "It is the harmony of the monastery garden with its rows of cherry trees and its splashing fountains and its surrounding walls that remind us of the world with its joy and grief but also shut it out." I will be asking myself whether in my own research I try to shut out the world. and Finally, on p. 246, "God demands of us a double brokenness, the first by way of the insight that God alone is great and that w can do nothing for him and for our own justification, the second by way of the insight that we must obey this great God in faith either by what we do not do or by what we do, but at all events that we must obey him if we really believe." Something to think over if you believe, as I do, that everyone has a unique contribution to make.

I also read my partner Tony's eclectic reading: something about a British Library report on young readers who use the Internet. There are a few myths: youngsters trust authority figures more than the Internet; they are not good searchers but know only a few simple applications; they are not actually more impatient. There was also a disquisition on Obama becoming inevitably the black candidate, and not simply a candidate, and another article about lack of content in the Democratic party; a complaint about a chain of British pub that limit the drinks for people accompanied by children; an obit for Suzanne Pleshette; a discussion of whether Vladimir Nabokov's dying wish to destroy a part of a novel should be respected by his son; a history of marriage and a history of the medical clinic; a discussion of Heidegger's early article on poetry; and reviews of books on shyness and eloquence (they worked, I'll read the books).

Naftali's Blind Spot,

I read the latest issue of the New Yorker, which has a really long article on the head of the US National Intelligence service, a review of some Chinese films, a great review of two books on the mortuary industry and death during the Civil War. I also read the latest issue of the New Scientist, which has a feature article on mind exercises. Finally, I read Naftali's Blind Spot, which is about the history of counter terrorism in the US since World War II. The book didn't make much of an impression on me, and I found the argument about the neglect of terrorism easy to believe without plowing through the whole book. I'm halfway through Deborah Harkness' Jewel House, which is about the scientific community in Elizabethan London, as the precursor to the Scientific Revolution. The chapter on licensed and unlicensed medical practitioners is a hoot. I'm also a hundred pages into Barth's book on Calvin.

Counterterrorism books

I plowed through the rest of my books on counter terrorism, though more are coming in every day. I read Europe and Counterterrorism, by Kirstin Archik and Paul Gallis. This is a survey of what European governments do for counterterrorism, written quite shortly after 9/11. I also read Science and Technology in Couterterrorism, by Tushar Gosh et al, of which primarily the psychology section will be useful to me. It also has some case studies and chronologies which I can use in much more detail. I also read Roots of Terrorism by Louise Richardson et al. This was less useful to me. Howard Russell's Terrorism and Counterterrrorism was excellent and most useful: it's a reader of the important articles in the field, and it was very useful. I was reassured to see how much support for my theory there was. Art and Richardson's Democracy and Counterterrorism is yet another edited collection, but it contained some mention of the case studies I'm interested in, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Then I also read Democratic development & political terrorism : the global perspective, edited by William Crotty. This was notable for the statement, which I'm not sure is accurate, that there are no democratic governments with a Muslim majority at the moment.

Barth's Homilectics, Popper's Propensities, Posner's Countering Terrorism

I was interested in Karl Barth's Homiletics (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1991) to see if there was anything in preaching that could be helpful to a professor. I thought there was. If I extrapolate somewhat:

• professors should come before their students primarily as fellow students themselves
• professors should come before their students with humility, and humility in terms of what they have come to know
  
• professors should have the courage to state what they see for themselves, and not just the conventional wisdom
• professors should care for their students
• professors should use the greatest wisdom available to them, as well as the latest scholarship

Karl Popper's World of Propensities (Bristol: Thoemmes, 1991) is another publication of two of his lectures. There is a quotation I like already: "Looking at my own long life, I find that the main allurements which led me on and on from my 17th year were theoretical problems. And among these problems of science and of probability theory loomed large. These were preferences. The solutions were accidents." From p. 26. And from p. 34, "I do not know of any creative scientist who had made no mistakes..."

I have also belatedly begun my bunch of readings on counter terrorism, starting with the ultra-right -wing Countering Terrorism by Richard A. Posner (New York: Roman Littlefield, 2006). It is a study leading to many policy recommendations which would infringe on human rights, but thankfully directed only at the United States.

Eclectic Reading, Biography of Cary Grant, Prayer by Karl Barth

My common law partner produces something he calls 'eclectic reading' from time to time, and I've read two issues in the last couple of days. On Monday, I read a bunch of articles recounting testimony at the inquest into the Princess of Wales' death. So I read the one line her lover Natty Khan had to say, which was discreet, thank goodness. Then the warbling of her former butler, who keeps a diary except when it's about to be subpoenaed. And best of all, the former head of Scotland Yard who said Di had a thing for me with back hair. Followed inevitably by speculation in the Daily Mail about who had back hair: not Charles, not Dodi, not Natty and not that cad, James Hewitt. In yesterday's eclectic, I read about England's dinosaur coast and the pioneer collector, Mary Anning; the benefits of capitalism for the soul (which I didn't by); a Wall Street Journal piece about the trend in home repairs among women -- a trend which I personally enjoy, except for the pink hammers; an article about the travails of Robert Oppenheimer, post-bomb; a discussion of the corporate failings of Starbucks; a bad piece on how Bedouin customs make Islam into a violence-laced religion (WRONG!) .

I also read Karl Barth's book on Prayer. It seems Karl has two hobby horses: exegesis of the technical sort, and a particular brand of systematic theology. He's very good at both, but I only enjoy reading the theology. In Prayer, I had hope for a more mystical treatment, but it has systematic theology on prayer followed by an exegesis of the Lord's Prayer.

I also read about 4 inches' worth of articles for my paper on Pakistan and Afghanistan, but it was the biography of Cary Grant that I really enjoyed. I devoured it happily cover to cover last evening, as I waited for the Michigan primary results. The eponymous critical biography is by Graham McCann. One of the articles was a Congressional Research Report on Islam in South and Southeast Asia, by Bruce Vaughn.

Montesquieu's Pensees, Vanity Fair and the New Yorker, and Fair's Cooperation with Pakistan and India

Pensees was interesting primarily int eh sections on literature and writing. Montesquieu candidly admits that he is afflicted with wanting passionately to write books and then being embarrassed by them. I felt comforted in my writer's soul! I too writhe in the night at the thought of some of my own mistakes, enshrined with finality in print. After that, I read Christine Fair's study of counter terrorism, Cooperation with Pakistan and India. This is a Rand study for the US air force, and contains some policy recommendations that struck me as basic and obvious, but useful nonetheless to the lay audience of the air force.

I have decided from now on to list the magazines I read. I won't discuss OK Magazine, which I consider entertainment on a par with junk food, but I did read Vanity Fair and the New Yorker. I love the New Yorker for its long articles on sometimes arcane subjects. This time it was the business of scrap metal, about which I knew nothing. The review section I always read as well, although I skip contemporary music. I skip the fiction and the poetry, dare I say it! Vanity Fair was a little thin, but Dominic Dunne is as self absorbed as ever, the read all about the Birley will contest in London (about the estate of the owner of the nightclub Annabel's), I was riveted by Karl Rove's Proust Questionnaire -- I despise the man's political tactics, but he makes a good pundit in general -- I reveled in the Scaife divorce exercise of 'he said, she said'. Can I spell Schadenfreude? I was bored with the umpteenth sussing of Princess Diana's inquest. There, I had a good time reading a certain level of trash. I routinely also read the New Scientist.

Barth's Witness to the Word, Ethics, Theology of the Reformed Confessions

With Ethics, I've read about a dozen books that were originally lectures for courses by various intellectuals: Maritain, Heidegger, and now Barth. He takes a highly abstract view of ethics, and doesn't even get to the concept of conscience until very late in the book, as he himself states. The other two books are very technical: Witness is actually a commentary on the first chapter of the Gospel according to John, such as the commentary of Romans that made Barth famous. I was handicapped in my appreciation by my lack of Greek, but it was extremely technical at best. Theology of the Reformed Confessions referred constantly to texts that I was not knowledgeable about, like the various catechisms and professions of faith of the Protestant denominations.

I also read a number of articles on air power in the latest Air and Aerospace Journal, as well as the latest issue of Vanity Fair cover to cover, but back to front.

Karl Barth's Final Testimonies and German Church in Conflict, Popper's Myth of Framework

When reading this collection of essays (London: Routledge, 1994) by Popper, I found an excellent summary of Popper's thought over the books I've already read. I also asked myself some questions regarding the refutability of my work. Do I know what evidence would constitute a refutation of my general theory of strategy? Yes, the choice of the indirect strategy by some actor who should choose a direct strategy. Are those categories of values and type of strategy distinct? Yes. Is it possible to select only some evidence in case studies in order to find what I wish to find? Yes, but that is possible in any case. Is there an additional danger in self-fulfilling prophecies because values have to be a relative judgment? Yes, but it is possible to guard against it.

Well, I'm glad I thought it all over. There were some quotes of interest to me. On p. 34, "I hold that orthodoxy is the death of knowledge, since the growth of knowledge depends entirely on the existence of disagreement." On p. 60, "we...can logically distinguish between a mistaken method of criticizing and a correct method of criticizing. The mistaken method starts from the question: how can we establish or justify our thesis or our theory? It thereby leads either to dogmatism, or to an infinite regress, or to the relativistic doctrine of rationally incommensurable frameworks. By contrast, the correct method of critical discussion starts from the question; What are the consequences of our thesis or our theory? Are they all acceptable to us?" On p. 70, "I used to warn my students against the widespread idea that one goes to college in order to learn how to talk and write 'impressively' and incomprehensibly." And finally, on p. 72, that some leaders of German sociology 'who do their intellectual best, and do it with the best conscience in the world, are nevertheless, I believe, simply taking trivialities in high-sounding language, as they were taught. They teach this to their students, who are dissatisfied, yet do the same. The genuine and general feeling of dissatisfaction, manifest in their hostility to the society in which they live, is a reflection of their unconscious dissatisfaction with the sterility of their own activities."

Barth's German Church Conflict is a collection of essays written during the rise of National Socialism in Germany in the 30s. They were brave, although Barth was protected to some extent by his Swiss nationality, but he was nonetheless deported for them from his home of 13 years, in Bonn. Final Testimonies is an assortment of less important transcriptions of last interviews and talks. Some of it is quite moving, particularly the quotation about Christ: "In him is the spur to work, warfare, and fellowship. In him is all that I have attempted in my life in weakness and folly." That is from p. 30 of my edition (Grand Rapids: Eeardmans, 1972), and it ought also to be my epitaph.

Englander's Ministry of Special Cases, Overheard in New York

I'm 150 pages away from completing the Rousseau works, but as a break I read Ministry of Special Cases by Nathan Englander, about Jewish parents in Argentina fearing the kidnapping of their son. I can't say I liked it, but it was a quick read at least. I also read Overheard in New York, which was vulgar in the extreme but did make me laugh perhaps half a dozen times. That is unusual, since I'm a terrible audience for that sort of humor.

Charmed Life and Rousseau's complete works

I read Charmed Life, Liza Campbell's story of her family living in Cawdor Castle -- Macbeth's castle. I thought it was a trashy tell-all, easily readable, and I found out at the end why. Dear old Dad disowned his own son, except for what was entailed. He was an alcoholic and a brute, and he left everything to his much younger second wife. No wonder everyone was ticked off. Astute editorship no doubt advised her to save that for last. If not, I'd have put down the book immediately.

Because of my travels and spending time at a sick relative's bedside, I read nearly all of Rousseau's works. I read his Confessions, his Reveries, essays on politics and on education, the Discours on various subjects, his plays and ballets, including the famous Narcisse. I'm now 500 pages from the end, and I was frankly enthralled, particularly by the autobiographical writings. He abandoned his five natural children to the tender mercies of the state creche, and I thought that was unpardonable. One child, OK, two children, oops, the rest was inexcusable. His poor common-law wife, who was forced to given them up. Then, by gosh, the academic uglies reared their heads. The famous Voltaire and the distinguished Diderot attacked Rousseau for those decision, dictated by a poverty they did not share, and they did so after Rousseau had a big success with Narcisse in the theater, but anonymously. To Rousseau's face, by gosh, they sympathized and worriedly inquired after his well-being to the wealthy noble patrons of the entire coterie. I was astounded -- this matter is not well known -- but I certainly recognized the scandalous pettiness. I am also sort of proud to have been able to read the novel Emile about education, a novel that is so sentimental and so maudlin that it has fallen from the hands of the most famous modern French writers, including Andre Gide. I aspire still to be a great reader, not just a writer.

Montesquieu's defense of Esprit des lois

Since I have to travel and will be sitting at a sick relative's bedside, without talking to allow him to rest, I took off to the library and got Jean-Jacques Rousseau's complete works and Montesquieu's complete works. At the bottom of my sixteen page reading list was to read the complete works of anyone whom the Pleiade thought worthy of publishing. (Pleiade is a collection that publishes the works of luminaries from all cultures, but in French. It's a famous collection in the francophone word, and, indeed, Pleiade is the French name of a great constellation. Love it! ) Because of personal circumstances, I jumped right to it for the time being.

I was reading the second volume of Montesquieu, since I had already read Esprit des lois and expected to whiz through the other books in the same volume. I was right: I read his essays on taste, and his files in preparation for writing Esprit, and then I also read his replies to his critics after publication.

That alone was worth the price of admission! Montesquieu has done what I have often wanted to do, that is, reply to my critics with nary a concern for their feelings of being thought arrogant. On p. 1161 of my edition, he says "Quand on critique un ouvrage, et un grand ouvrage, il faut tacher de se procurer une connaissance particuliere de la science qui y est traitee, et bien lire les auteurs approuves qui ont deja ecrit sur cette science, afin de voir si l'auteur s'est ecarte de la maniere recue et ordinarie de la traiter." In other words, if one is going to criticize a great work, one should make sure that one understands the work thoroughly and to have also a thorough background, to see if the author has left the rails or not. Bull's eye! So many critics fail to take the time to understand what another person writes, or to be thorough even. There are exceptions, but no many.

Karl Popper's Conjectures and Refutations and Realism and the Aim of Science

Realism is part of three books as postscripts to Logic of Scientific Inquiry, which is an excellent book but which I read about ten years ago. So it's harder to follow, although it's very good. I certainly understand better the necessity to settle the issue of whether the world can be mapped by theory, and of course I was reminded of Popper's great contribution to knowledge, the criteria of falsifiability. Conjectures is also an excellent book, which has on p. 37 the quote: "...the criterion of the scientific statement of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.' This answers a question I had in my mind for many years, since a reviewer asked whether the theory of strategy I originated was falsifiable -- possibly there were flaws in the formulation regarding falsifiability, but it is now clear to me that it was testable. And I have, repeatedly, tested it. On p. 221 of m y edition (New York: Basic, 1962), he discusses the current ideal of science, which is an atomatized deductive system. This ideal has been dominant in European epistemology since Euclid through Newton and, of course Einstein. There has been a consistent tension between the intuitionist inductivist Continent and the North American atomized deductivist. I can live with deduction. I as a thinker cannot live with atomization. Strategy is impossible with atomization, and so are most complex social and/or intellectual phenomena.In Conjecture and Refutations (New York: Rowman Littlefield, 1983), Popper says that 'The inductivist's mistake is not confined to his failure to appreciate the difference between learning by trial and error and learning by rote, or to his consequent assumption that we can add to our knowledge by the formation of habits. He also believes that there is some raw material for knowledge in the form of perceptions or observations or sense-impressions..." Well, I do believe it. I believe the scientific method, like the legal system, passes on nine-tenths of what is know and true.

Karl Popper's Open Society and Objective Knowledge

I have been an admirer of Karl Popper, but with Objective Knowledge I understood more fully what he was interested in debating and I found my increase in understanding meant I was less interested. Ultimately, I don't think it is possible to settle the issue of whether we are bound to repeat history or, really, whether we are free or not, which are the issues underlying the discussions about inductivism and all the rest. What is striking to me in Open Society and its Enemies is the ease with which he identifies problems of incipient authoritarianism in all these philosophers in vogue. The other striking fact is that he feels free to criticize just about anybody really vigorously, and I wonder he didn't run into all sorts of trouble with his fellow academics. He savages intuition, which I value, with the following: "'intuitionist logic' is ...just a name for a very interesting and somewhat weakened form of classical logic." (p. 306). So there!

Popper, the rest of Dickens

I have read Our Mutual Friend, Hard Times, Martin Chuzzlewit, The Old Curiosity Shop, and Barnaby Rudge. That was the last of Dickens, and while I am glad that I read this great serial novelist, I'm with Oscar Wilde: "You would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh at the death of little Nell." The sentimentality was too much for me, and overall I prefer Anthony Trollope, and not just for the political or the academic novels. I admire Dickens' incessant railing on poverty -- I'll remember for a long time Lizzie's hatred of the river muck which was her family's living in Our Mutual Friend -- but it was like reading a soap opera. He is cinematic, he is witty, he is good at caricaturing characters. I grant that he knew how to write constant cliff hangers. Old Curiosity Shop ends with the death of its heroine, little Nell, and he made his readers wait not one monthly installment but two before finding out her fate. Apparently the longshoremen in New York shouted at the ship arriving with the British papers: "Is little Nell dead?" It was like 'who shot JR?' I'll never know that sort of fame with my writing, even if my fiction ever does get published or plays performed, but what can I say? I still don't like him. It was a slog to read him.

I also read Karl Popper's Open Universe: An Argument for Indeterminism.