Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [lewiscarroll] Inherited Wealth

Expand Messages
  • Keith Wright
    Mike, not being a fan of S&B I d not read this or if I had it hadn t registered. I don t think we can blame CLD for the dubious logic as he was a man of his
    Message 1 of 19 , Jun 7, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Mike,

      not being a fan of S&B I'd not read this or if I had it hadn't registered.

      I don't think we can blame CLD for the 'dubious logic' as he was a man of
      his time. The English class system, which is still alive and well, is a
      tricky subject. S&B considers the two class Marxist view where there are
      only peasants and lords, or downtrodden workers and parasitic wealthy
      lords - depending upon who was giving the commentary! This may at one time
      have been true but the middle ages produced what CLD called 'trade' people,
      when he met them on the beach at Eastbourne, a wealthy middle class and so
      the three class system came into vogue. Neither system is the truth but
      they both worked tolerably well and every English person uses some sort of
      class model in his/her head even now to classify people he meets although it
      is getting harder to do as wealth is becoming spread out. We then use other
      pointers and wealth never was the whole decider in the matter in any case
      i.e. as a parson's son he was middle class and despite the fact that the
      grocer down the road had more money than his father the grocer's sons were
      not his equal.

      CLD chose in S&B to debate, and it is a debate, the two model class system
      and he comes across the obvious stumbling blocks which even his logic cannot
      resolve. Wealth confers status and also gives advantage to the offspring of
      the rich which the lower classes cannot compete against. We see it at Rugby
      and Ch.Ch. where CLD went, where the attendees form an invisible club which
      we call even now 'the old boy network' a system which favours old boys of an
      institution solely for their attendance and in the belief that the perceived
      values of the institution, which often did not exist, have rubbed off on
      them despite any failings they may have in their own character or ability.
      CLD came across it at Oxford where he taught wealthy upper class students
      who had no interest or aptitude for mathematics - and failed with them. One
      went on to become prime minister and failed at that but it did him no harm!

      A very tricky subject, one I've debated with Kate but it's not one an
      outsider can really grasp because the pointers to class are not easily
      picked up and even when explained seem, to a non English person, to be
      trivia. It's no wonder CLD failed in S&B to explain it but even his
      incisive logic cannot be applied to such a system! I looked for dubious
      logic but you'll need to explain what you mean on that point. All logical
      argumnets must start off with the premise that there is a question to be
      asked and that that question has an answer - the English class system
      perhaps does not fall into that category so logic cannot be applied to it!

      Keith W





      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "mikeindex2001" <alphabeticalorder@...>
      To: <lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 9:28 PM
      Subject: [lewiscarroll] Inherited Wealth


      >
      > The only commentary I know of from LC on inherited wealth is
      > in 'Sylvie & Bruno' where he strongly defends it and criticises the
      > 'socialist' analysis very disparagingly - using some very very
      > dubious logic and some quite sophistic reasoning to do so.
      > (see S&B Concluded Ch.3)
      >
      > Was he deliberately doing a bad job of defending it in order to slyly
      > attack it? or was he (as other evidence implies) capable of accepting
      > very bad arguments when he really wanted to believe in something?
      >
      > Mike
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Wright" <keith@c...>
      > wrote:
      > > Kate,
      > >
      > > it's not sensational enough for a new bio. just a lot of boring
      > facts. I'm the one who points out that Dogson could not have been
      > Jack the Ripper as he was elsewhere at the time! Things such as that
      > are easy to refute and essentially the authors of such things are
      > attention seeking balm pots - but a true analysis of CLD is extremely
      > difficult. The evidence is fragmentary and in many instances just
      > not there. Much more difficult to handle are the bandwaggon jumpers,
      > such as Nickel who pretends to defend him but while doing so actually
      > does the reverse, but at the same time he shows the public some
      > interesting images with a commentary by a tame poodle writer which
      > is, to say the least scurrilous in nature and partly plagiarised if
      > Mike is right. But would anyone really be interested in the true
      > CLD, whatever that is, when the myth is so much more entertaining?
      > >
      > > On the church I see CLD as low church with high church connections
      > and with a tendency to seek out radicals but not to wholly embrace
      > their doctrine. He's like that in his art, the Pre Raphaelites were
      > if nothing else a bunch of loose living bohemian chaps with the
      > exception of Millais and even he went beyond the bounds in a certain
      > liaison. However, CLD visits them regularly but no mud sticks to
      > him.
      > >
      > > In our modern parlance we would say he was made of Teflon! My
      > question is why? How could he move between Hatfield House and Cheyne
      > Walk and yet be acceptable in both places and apparently be at ease
      > in both? He was apparently so confident of himself that he turned
      > down offers to visit Hatfield House. Compare this with his chasing
      > Bertie, Prince of Wales, for a photo opportunity. Admittedly there
      > were a few years between the two and 'Alice' had made him famous in
      > between! A good reason perhaps to be confident! Authors are not in
      > the main confident beings though, always seeking their next book and
      > keeping an eye over their shoulders for rivals. But CLD wasn't like
      > this!
      > >
      > > On inherited wealth CLD says nothing that I am aware of. He
      > probably did not know of the Lutwidges slave trading and there is a
      > conspiracy in Whitehaven still to hide the facts - it is certainly
      > not broadcast in the way such things are at Liverpool. A closer knit
      > community still today. He says he knew nothing of his ancestry,
      > which I know is partly not the truth.
      > >
      > > Once again I will stop before I bore everyone to distraction!
      > >
      > > Keith W
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: Kate
      > > To: lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com
      > > Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 1:14 PM
      > > Subject: [lewiscarroll] Carroll's Thoughts
      > >
      > >
      > > Thanks Keith - plenty of food for thought there. I actually
      > don't know why you don't write a bio of Carroll - you have so much
      > factual information there that its a pity to go to waste. The
      > Lutwidges are very interesting - I mean - the fact that Henry
      > Lutwidge wrote this sermon denouncing the Catholic Church is
      > something I have always found interesting - just what was CLD's
      > stance on the Catholic Church, for example. I realise that he was
      > tolerant, in one of his letters he wrote that he was happy to take
      > sonme child to the church of his choice, so he was obviously not that
      > insular in his beliefs.
      > >
      > > Also - the many books he had in his library about the mind, and
      > various mental disorders, etc, was obviously sparked by Skeffington's
      > post as Supervisor of Mental Hospitals. And what about the Raikes?
      > His ancestors - who started the first Sunday Schools. And the one
      > that has always fascinated me - that the Lutwidges made a good deal
      > of their fortune in the slave trade. How DID CLD feel about inherited
      > wealth?
      > >
      > >
      > > Best, Kate
      > >
      > >
      > > visit our homepage at:
      > >
      > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lewiscarroll/
      > >
      > > to unsubscribe send a blank email to: lewiscarroll-
      > unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > > ADVERTISEMENT
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
      > ----------
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
      > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lewiscarroll/
      > >
      > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      > Service.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > visit our homepage at:
      >
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lewiscarroll/
      >
      > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
      lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Keith Wright
      Ann, it s very kind of you to say so but I d be entering the realms of speculation and copying the style of books I abhor if I even attempted it! I ve
      Message 2 of 19 , Jun 8, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Ann,
         
        it's very kind of you to say so but I'd be entering the realms of speculation and copying the style of books I abhor if I even attempted it!  I've followed CLD around the British isles for years trying to see what he saw and sat in record offices for hours trying to understand his ancestry etc. and in the end he always eludes me.  I'm not alone in that but I hope I just have enough common sense to realise it and keep my pen off the paper in needless speculation. My ancestry info will, however, be published in the Carrollian's next issue and that's as far as I will go with it. I just got interested in that subject although it explains very little, if anything, about him and his works but, as a Yorkshireman, I was pleased to find that the Dodgson family were from solid Yorkshire farming  stock!  The most revealing piece is,  think, his grandfather's will - obviously written by a man who knew he was probably going to die the next day.  Real melodrama!  It will be quoted in my piece in full, except for where I could not decipher it!
         
        I was going to do a guide to the CLD places but Charlie Lovet beat me to it - he didn't do it as well as I would, being a stranger to these shores, and it should have been in colour, but nevertheless it's been done.  Kate keeps on at me to write it even now but the moment has passed.
         
        There's a lot of folk like me beavering away - Maurice Taylor for instance in Ripon is doing a great job and he even has an exhibition set up near the cathedral - one I urge anyone within the UK to visit.  I've done a booklet on Daresbury, mainly about the church his father preached in, which I give to any visitors, LC minded or otherwise, who visit the place. I am happy to give tours around Daresbury should anyone be interested in that, sometimes difficult to fit things in though, as Richard on our list will tell you!
         
        Incidentally, one thing I came across which puzzles me is that Daresbury was a poor parish and Croft was a rich one, according to all we know, but CLD's father worked exceedingly hard in Daresbury but had relatively little to do in Croft!  A reflection of the wealth of the parish perhaps rather than the number of inhabitants!
         
        Keith w 
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 10:14 PM
        Subject: Re: [lewiscarroll] Carroll's Thoughts

        Kate, I was thinking this very thing! So I'm glad you said it. I would love to see your book, too, Keith.
        AnnOxford



        On Monday, June 7, 2004, at 07:14 AM, Kate wrote:

        Thanks Keith - plenty of food for thought there.  I actually don't know why you don't write a bio of Carroll - you have so much factual information there that its a pity to go to waste. 
      • mikeindex2001
        For me the odd thing about his argument in favour of inherited wealth is that it s possible to construct a much better one than he did, and knowing his powers
        Message 3 of 19 , Jun 10, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          For me the odd thing about his argument in favour of inherited wealth
          is that it's possible to construct a much better one than he did, and
          knowing his powers of logical analysis it seems hard to believe he
          couldn't see that too. I wonder why he opted for a weak case when
          there was a better one to be had? Maybe he was just blinded by an a
          priori belief, or is it possible he was deliberately creating a weak
          and false argument to see what responses he got? He seems to have
          enjoyed teaching by provocation rather than example after all

          Mike



          --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Wright" <keith@c...>
          wrote:
          > Mike,
          >
          > not being a fan of S&B I'd not read this or if I had it hadn't
          registered.
          >
        • Jim Buch
          ... Can you amplify on the teaching by provocation a little? One has to be careful with this method, because some of the students will all too easily miss
          Message 4 of 19 , Jun 10, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "mikeindex2001"
            <alphabeticalorder@m...> wrote:
            >
            > For me the odd thing about his argument in favour of inherited wealth
            > is that it's possible to construct a much better one than he did, and
            > knowing his powers of logical analysis it seems hard to believe he
            > couldn't see that too. I wonder why he opted for a weak case when
            > there was a better one to be had? Maybe he was just blinded by an a
            > priori belief, or is it possible he was deliberately creating a weak
            > and false argument to see what responses he got? He seems to have
            > enjoyed teaching by provocation rather than example after all
            >
            > Mike
            >
            >

            Can you amplify on the "teaching by provocation" a little?

            One has to be careful with this method, because some of the "students"
            will all too easily miss the whole point.

            I would like to hear how he used the technique. I've probably already
            read it and missed it.

            Jim
          • Keith Wright
            Mike, another alternative suggested to me recently by Kate is that CLD wasn t the narrator so was writing it from someone else s point of view. That would
            Message 5 of 19 , Jun 10, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Mike,

              another alternative suggested to me recently by Kate is that CLD wasn't the
              narrator so was writing it from someone else's point of view.

              That would appear to fit as the two class system must have obviously seemed
              suspect to someone such as CLD who moved mainly among the middle classes.

              Keith




              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "mikeindex2001" <alphabeticalorder@...>
              To: <lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 9:27 AM
              Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Inherited Wealth - LC's commentary in 'Sylvie &
              Bruno'


              >
              > For me the odd thing about his argument in favour of inherited wealth
              > is that it's possible to construct a much better one than he did, and
              > knowing his powers of logical analysis it seems hard to believe he
              > couldn't see that too. I wonder why he opted for a weak case when
              > there was a better one to be had? Maybe he was just blinded by an a
              > priori belief, or is it possible he was deliberately creating a weak
              > and false argument to see what responses he got? He seems to have
              > enjoyed teaching by provocation rather than example after all
              >
              > Mike
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Wright" <keith@c...>
              > wrote:
              > > Mike,
              > >
              > > not being a fan of S&B I'd not read this or if I had it hadn't
              > registered.
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > visit our homepage at:
              >
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lewiscarroll/
              >
              > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
              lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • jenny2write
              ... wasn t the ... Keith, I do think this is a good point. When reading the entire section it seems to me as if CLD is actually using the material about
              Message 6 of 19 , Jun 10, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                > another alternative suggested to me recently by Kate is that CLD
                wasn't the
                > narrator so was writing it from someone else's point of view.

                Keith, I do think this is a good point. When reading the entire
                section it seems to me as if CLD is actually using the material about
                inherited wealth as part of a larger argument.

                He is differentiating between the ideas that (1) there can be no
                logical justification for demanding that someone contributes to
                society just because they have inherited wealth - and (2) that there
                is nonetheless a MORAL justification for expecting a rich person to
                contribute to society. And he then goes on to consider (3) how you
                evaluate the contribution made by this rich person, who can afford so
                much more than a poor person.

                IN (1) he works on the assumption that in order to acquire wealth or
                money someone has to work to earn it. Therefore, if you possess
                wealth (or have inherited it) it means that your dues to society have
                already been paid, either by you or whoever earned the money.
                Therefore nobody can expect you to contribute any more to society.
                (And he also dismisses the idea that wealth may not have been fairly
                or honestly earned, by saying that one cannot research the
                provenance of all one's own assets.)

                He then contrasts this with the religious and moral view which, in a
                nutshell, is that however much money you have, your skills and
                talents belong to God and you have a duty to God to use them for the
                benefit of others.

                Jenny
              • Keith Wright
                Jenny, it s an argument which is based of course on people acting reasonably - which naturally they don t! There seems to be some logic in the fact CLD puts
                Message 7 of 19 , Jun 10, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Jenny,

                  it's an argument which is based of course on people acting reasonably -
                  which naturally they don't!

                  There seems to be some logic in the fact CLD puts forward that those who
                  earn it should be entitled to use it but that after that it should go back
                  into the common pool. This overlooks the fact that whilst they are alive
                  they naturally use the money to confer status, position and power on their
                  offspring. However, it also neglects the rule of three! This is that by
                  the third generation away from the earner the offspring are so spoiled by
                  money and position that society might regard them as being totally off their
                  trolleys and so they are of little use to the society they live in!

                  For myself I think the common pool idea is the best and no inherited wealth
                  should occur but it's a very simplistic model and it is very difficult to
                  see how it could work in practice. CLD or his narrator tried to apply logic
                  to the situation and failed.

                  Having said this it amazes me how England escaped the revolutions of 1830
                  and 1848 and Victoria lived in fear of assassination and revolution
                  throughout her life. Osborne House, being on an island, was a good bolt
                  hole when things looks like getting difficult, although how much she knew of
                  the grinding poverty the poor lived in is debateable.

                  Keith




                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "jenny2write" <woolf@...>
                  To: <lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 10:43 PM
                  Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Inherited Wealth - LC's commentary in 'Sylvie &
                  Bruno'


                  >
                  > > another alternative suggested to me recently by Kate is that CLD
                  > wasn't the
                  > > narrator so was writing it from someone else's point of view.
                  >
                  > Keith, I do think this is a good point. When reading the entire
                  > section it seems to me as if CLD is actually using the material about
                  > inherited wealth as part of a larger argument.
                  >
                  > He is differentiating between the ideas that (1) there can be no
                  > logical justification for demanding that someone contributes to
                  > society just because they have inherited wealth - and (2) that there
                  > is nonetheless a MORAL justification for expecting a rich person to
                  > contribute to society. And he then goes on to consider (3) how you
                  > evaluate the contribution made by this rich person, who can afford so
                  > much more than a poor person.
                  >
                  > IN (1) he works on the assumption that in order to acquire wealth or
                  > money someone has to work to earn it. Therefore, if you possess
                  > wealth (or have inherited it) it means that your dues to society have
                  > already been paid, either by you or whoever earned the money.
                  > Therefore nobody can expect you to contribute any more to society.
                  > (And he also dismisses the idea that wealth may not have been fairly
                  > or honestly earned, by saying that one cannot research the
                  > provenance of all one's own assets.)
                  >
                  > He then contrasts this with the religious and moral view which, in a
                  > nutshell, is that however much money you have, your skills and
                  > talents belong to God and you have a duty to God to use them for the
                  > benefit of others.
                  >
                  > Jenny
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > visit our homepage at:
                  >
                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lewiscarroll/
                  >
                  > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                  lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • jenny2write
                  Which of CLD s colleagues was it - Strong?? - who said that he thought CLD s aim was to try and codify a system of logic which would work in everyday life. Or
                  Message 8 of 19 , Jun 11, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Which of CLD's colleagues was it - Strong?? - who said that he
                    thought CLD's aim was to try and codify a system of logic which would
                    work in everyday life. Or something like that. Sorry don't have the
                    exact quote. I imagine CLD knew it was doomed to failure really -
                    but I think he liked to try, and keep trying - because it seems to
                    have mattered such a lot to him to seek certainties. I think if one
                    reads his ideas in this light, they make more sense.

                    Remember that when he was on his death bed (which must be a pretty
                    unpleasant place to be) he clung on to mathematics and worked out
                    sums until he could write no more. This shows how much of a prop it
                    was to him to have certainties to hold on to: they are what he turned
                    to in extremis. (Incidentally I believe the sheets of paper he worked
                    on then were kept by the sisters - anyone know where they are?)

                    I would guess that the problem of religion offering NO logical
                    certainties was a trial to him always, since he seems to have had an
                    intense emotional need to believe in God, and probably believed that
                    his own worth was connected with how close he was to God. Yet God is
                    only visible through the eyes of faith, and simply disappears when
                    logic is applied.

                    We know how it troubled CLD being unable to argue logically about
                    religion - this could well have been why he refused to become
                    ordained priest.

                    I sometimes think of the Red Queen's advice to Alice to practice
                    believing impossible things in order to fit herself for adult life -
                    six of them before breakfast every day. It is a typically comical and
                    light hearted joke but CLD often made really quite funny jokes about
                    intellectual problems which genuinely bothered him. I wonder if CLD
                    himself felt that he had been brought up believing impossible things.
                    Because if something has been drummed into you in childhood as a
                    condition of being acceptable to those you love - then it is very,
                    very hard to chuck those ideas out.
                  • Jim Buch
                    ... Reminds me of my father. Long ago, I bought him a scientific calculator before they were so common and inexpensive. Prior to that he was really proud of
                    Message 9 of 19 , Jun 11, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "jenny2write" <woolf@j...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > Remember that when he was on his death bed (which must be a pretty
                      > unpleasant place to be) he clung on to mathematics and worked out
                      > sums until he could write no more. This shows how much of a prop it
                      > was to him to have certainties to hold on to: they are what he turned
                      > to in extremis. (Incidentally I believe the sheets of paper he worked
                      > on then were kept by the sisters - anyone know where they are?)
                      >
                      >

                      Reminds me of my father.

                      Long ago, I bought him a "scientific calculator" before they were so
                      common and inexpensive.

                      Prior to that he was really proud of his use of logarithms to solve
                      arithmetic problems, and the use of trigonometric tables to do a
                      little trig.

                      Now, the logarithmic tables and trig tables and more were all inside
                      this little flat box that fit in his hand.

                      He died at the kitchen table. He had the logarithm and trig tables
                      out, and sheets and sheets of paper. He was tediously checking the
                      "scientific calculator".

                      I was asked if I wanted the sheets of paper and said "No".

                      Perhaps it gave him comfort as the world was changing and what used to
                      be hard and valuable was no longer so.

                      To me now, the doing of mathematics on a deathbed doesn't seem strange.
                    • Keith Wright
                      Jenny, I m not so sure he would know it would not work. Look at what he said when he could not convince Wilfred that he needed to keep to all the rules at
                      Message 10 of 19 , Jun 11, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Jenny,

                        I'm not so sure he would know it would not work. Look at what he said when
                        he could not convince Wilfred that he needed to keep to all the rules at
                        Ch.Ch. not just the ones he agreed with! Thought himself unfit for the
                        ministry! If every vicar took that view there would be a lot of empty
                        pulpits!

                        I think many folk who have firm views about things just cannot understand
                        why others do not share their views - especially if logic gives them a
                        platform upon which to argue for their corner.

                        Keith



                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "jenny2write" <woolf@...>
                        To: <lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 10:03 AM
                        Subject: [lewiscarroll] Logic as applied to everyday life.


                        > Which of CLD's colleagues was it - Strong?? - who said that he
                        > thought CLD's aim was to try and codify a system of logic which would
                        > work in everyday life. Or something like that. Sorry don't have the
                        > exact quote. I imagine CLD knew it was doomed to failure really -
                        > but I think he liked to try, and keep trying - because it seems to
                        > have mattered such a lot to him to seek certainties. I think if one
                        > reads his ideas in this light, they make more sense.
                        >
                        > Remember that when he was on his death bed (which must be a pretty
                        > unpleasant place to be) he clung on to mathematics and worked out
                        > sums until he could write no more. This shows how much of a prop it
                        > was to him to have certainties to hold on to: they are what he turned
                        > to in extremis. (Incidentally I believe the sheets of paper he worked
                        > on then were kept by the sisters - anyone know where they are?)
                        >
                        > I would guess that the problem of religion offering NO logical
                        > certainties was a trial to him always, since he seems to have had an
                        > intense emotional need to believe in God, and probably believed that
                        > his own worth was connected with how close he was to God. Yet God is
                        > only visible through the eyes of faith, and simply disappears when
                        > logic is applied.
                        >
                        > We know how it troubled CLD being unable to argue logically about
                        > religion - this could well have been why he refused to become
                        > ordained priest.
                        >
                        > I sometimes think of the Red Queen's advice to Alice to practice
                        > believing impossible things in order to fit herself for adult life -
                        > six of them before breakfast every day. It is a typically comical and
                        > light hearted joke but CLD often made really quite funny jokes about
                        > intellectual problems which genuinely bothered him. I wonder if CLD
                        > himself felt that he had been brought up believing impossible things.
                        > Because if something has been drummed into you in childhood as a
                        > condition of being acceptable to those you love - then it is very,
                        > very hard to chuck those ideas out.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > visit our homepage at:
                        >
                        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lewiscarroll/
                        >
                        > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                        lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • jenny2write
                        ... said when ... rules at ... the ... Keith, perhaps I put that badly. This has always seemed to me to be an area he COULD NOT think about, because it was a
                        Message 11 of 19 , Jun 11, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Wright" <keith@c...>
                          wrote:
                          > Jenny,
                          >
                          > I'm not so sure he would know it would not work. Look at what he
                          said when
                          > he could not convince Wilfred that he needed to keep to all the
                          rules at
                          > Ch.Ch. not just the ones he agreed with! Thought himself unfit for
                          the
                          > ministry!

                          Keith, perhaps I put that badly. This has always seemed to me to be
                          an area he COULD NOT think about, because it was a very, very serious
                          conflict for him. To think it would not ever be possible to crack the
                          code of the world by using the intellect, is a deeply disturbing idea
                          to the kind of person who likes to pin down the underlying rules and
                          understand them thoroughly. For the same reason the idea of God is
                          often highly unsatisfactory to anyone who has that precise and
                          rational cast of mind. I believe CLD's mixed emotions prevented him
                          from thinking about this kind of thing sensibly - the conflict was
                          TOO disturbing.

                          Didn't he believe himself unfit for the ministry because he could not
                          convince his little bro of something simple like the necessity to
                          stick to the rules at Ch Ch? And therefore fatally doubted his
                          ability to advise parishioners about religious difficulties in a
                          logical way? If so, that says it all. No wonder he wanted to give
                          up the ministry, and I think this is probably why he did refuse to be
                          a priest. A leopard can't change their spots, and if CLD was the
                          kind of guy who was unable to believe anything unless he had worked
                          it out for himself, then the idea of trying and failing to convince
                          others of what he himself was secretly unconvinced about, would be
                          catastrophic for him.

                          What an interesting thing about your Dad, Jim. Did you inherit
                          this attitude towards mathematics being somehow reassuring and
                          dependable? I have never been quite sure of your line of work but I
                          have had the impression it is mathematical.

                          And on the subject of mathematics, did CLD ever say anything which
                          suggested he saw mathematics as a very basic feature of the universe?
                          I have wondered about the view put forward by some modern scientists
                          that *everything* is ultimately based on mathematics. Jenny
                        • Keith Wright
                          Jenny, CLD wasn t alone in expressing the doubts he felt about the ministry. Liddell of course said he should never have been ordained. Arnold and Stanley were
                          Message 12 of 19 , Jun 11, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Jenny,

                            CLD wasn't alone in expressing the doubts he felt about the ministry.
                            Liddell of course said he should never have been ordained. Arnold and
                            Stanley were also brave enough to express their doubts to their friends.
                            I'd guess anyone who did not have doubts had not thought about it.

                            CLD delved quite a lot into probabilities and I would think a mind such as
                            his would not be able to resist applying his logic to the field of religion.
                            We have in physics a similar barrier to knowing about the behaviour of small
                            particles which means that we can know where something is at any instance or
                            what it is doing but we cannot be certain of the outcome because we cannot
                            know both conditions at the same time. It may be that CLD thought along the
                            lines of probability and knew there was no certainty.

                            In the field of human nature predicting behaviour is almost impossible.

                            Keith

                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: "jenny2write" <woolf@...>
                            To: <lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 8:13 PM
                            Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Logic as applied to everyday life.


                            > --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Wright" <keith@c...>
                            > wrote:
                            > > Jenny,
                            > >
                            > > I'm not so sure he would know it would not work. Look at what he
                            > said when
                            > > he could not convince Wilfred that he needed to keep to all the
                            > rules at
                            > > Ch.Ch. not just the ones he agreed with! Thought himself unfit for
                            > the
                            > > ministry!
                            >
                            > Keith, perhaps I put that badly. This has always seemed to me to be
                            > an area he COULD NOT think about, because it was a very, very serious
                            > conflict for him. To think it would not ever be possible to crack the
                            > code of the world by using the intellect, is a deeply disturbing idea
                            > to the kind of person who likes to pin down the underlying rules and
                            > understand them thoroughly. For the same reason the idea of God is
                            > often highly unsatisfactory to anyone who has that precise and
                            > rational cast of mind. I believe CLD's mixed emotions prevented him
                            > from thinking about this kind of thing sensibly - the conflict was
                            > TOO disturbing.
                            >
                            > Didn't he believe himself unfit for the ministry because he could not
                            > convince his little bro of something simple like the necessity to
                            > stick to the rules at Ch Ch? And therefore fatally doubted his
                            > ability to advise parishioners about religious difficulties in a
                            > logical way? If so, that says it all. No wonder he wanted to give
                            > up the ministry, and I think this is probably why he did refuse to be
                            > a priest. A leopard can't change their spots, and if CLD was the
                            > kind of guy who was unable to believe anything unless he had worked
                            > it out for himself, then the idea of trying and failing to convince
                            > others of what he himself was secretly unconvinced about, would be
                            > catastrophic for him.
                            >
                            > What an interesting thing about your Dad, Jim. Did you inherit
                            > this attitude towards mathematics being somehow reassuring and
                            > dependable? I have never been quite sure of your line of work but I
                            > have had the impression it is mathematical.
                            >
                            > And on the subject of mathematics, did CLD ever say anything which
                            > suggested he saw mathematics as a very basic feature of the universe?
                            > I have wondered about the view put forward by some modern scientists
                            > that *everything* is ultimately based on mathematics. Jenny
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > visit our homepage at:
                            >
                            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lewiscarroll/
                            >
                            > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                            lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                          • jenny2write
                            ... ministry. ... and ... friends. How interesting - I did not know this. Can you give me references, please?
                            Message 13 of 19 , Jun 11, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In
                              >
                              > CLD wasn't alone in expressing the doubts he felt about the
                              ministry.
                              > Liddell of course said he should never have been ordained. Arnold
                              and
                              > Stanley were also brave enough to express their doubts to their
                              friends.

                              How interesting - I did not know this. Can you give me references,
                              please?
                            • Keith Wright
                              Jenny, it s in their respective bios. Stanley s Life of Arnold page 340 in the case of Arnold and A Victorian Dean page 24 in the case of Stanley. In
                              Message 14 of 19 , Jun 11, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Jenny,

                                it's in their respective bios. Stanley's 'Life of Arnold' page 340 in the
                                case of Arnold and 'A Victorian Dean' page 24 in the case of Stanley. In
                                Liddell's case I think I read it in his bio but as the index is not
                                comprehensive I haven't been able to locate the reference. Perhaps someone
                                else can source that?

                                Stanley had similar doubts as CLD but not so much in his ability but as to
                                the articles. Anyhow, read it and make up your own mind.

                                Keith


                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: "jenny2write" <woolf@...>
                                To: <lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com>
                                Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 9:06 PM
                                Subject: [lewiscarroll] CLD - should he ever have been ordained?


                                > --- In
                                > >
                                > > CLD wasn't alone in expressing the doubts he felt about the
                                > ministry.
                                > > Liddell of course said he should never have been ordained. Arnold
                                > and
                                > > Stanley were also brave enough to express their doubts to their
                                > friends.
                                >
                                > How interesting - I did not know this. Can you give me references,
                                > please?
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > visit our homepage at:
                                >
                                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lewiscarroll/
                                >
                                > to unsubscribe send a blank email to:
                                lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                              • jenny2write
                                ... but as to ... Thanks for the info Keith but I don t have either of those books - is it possible for you to quote them or are the extracts too long to type
                                Message 15 of 19 , Jun 12, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  >
                                  > Stanley had similar doubts as CLD but not so much in his ability
                                  but as to
                                  > the articles. Anyhow, read it and make up your own mind.

                                  Thanks for the info Keith but I don't have either of those books - is
                                  it possible for you to quote them or are the extracts too long to
                                  type out? Jenny
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.