Well, now 'ee's a dastardly hack, see? Nuffin' special about that, hackdom so often encourages moderate dastardry. In my experience. As a highly qualified doctor.
Trust me.
Anonymous said…
I studied Les Murray many a year ago for my HSC, I had this prevailing feeling at the time that he was a twat. Now it's confirmed. Btw, I much prefer poetry by people on drugs, not poetry by fat conceited boring people.
Depends if the letter really was from Murray, of course. Was it Murray who was supposed to have been part of the coup d'etat that saw Robert Manne ousted from Quadrant's editorship and replaced by Paddy McGuinness? Art seems to be a bit doubtful about the provenance of the letter himself - uses the qualifier 'apparently'.
Greg McLaren, incidentally, to whom the letter is addressed, is frequently published in Quadrant.
I'm not huge Les Murray fan, really. Occasionally a good poet, often a boring one. Quadrant is my favourite magazine for poetry in Australia, tho'.
Acts of dastardry and derring-dont are common amongst poets, for some reason. As Ivor Indyk said to me once, Aussie poets have a habit of 'squabbling over the spoils' for poetry, which, in Australia, are rather meagre.
Good question! I'm personally conservative, philosophically libertarian, and politically more right-wing than most people I know. And in general fairly confused. I guess it means that I don't like to force the kind of standards which I hold myself up to personally upon everyone else, since I prefer people to make their own choices and dislike moral authoritarianism.
I used to read Quadrant regularly, and I enjoy the writing much more than in other Aussie literary journals - I can't stand Overland, and I can't understand Southerly. Quadrant at least has good science fiction published, and that entertaining old fart Peter Ryan.
Not in the pay of the CIA, though I did once, admittedly, get payed for a review I wrote for Quadrant.
No tongue in cheek. I do get annoyed sometimes when people meet me and they call me conservative, but they're probably right, in the sense that I naturally conform to a lifestyle that I presume would be considered the conservative norm - I work 9-5, like traditional art (my favourite poetry, God help me, is usually in rhymed quatrains!), and I'm often quite (stiflingly) polite around other people, I have never taken illegal drugs*, and I went for two years to a private school.
I don't judge people for living different lifestyles to this (I don't *think* I do, anyway), though the personal choices we make do reflect a kind of deeper moral understanding of the world/moral code.
*Oh, wait, actually - I did, once, but, can you guess? I didn't inhale...!
I suppose it depends, too, on whether you seriously think a person can have moral standards and be a conservative; on whether you think conservative moral standards are reconcilable with progressive moral standards; or on whether you think that moral standards are upheld/advanced principally by progressives.
I think moral standards are deeply personal despite springing from the same basic biblical platform such as do not kill, do not steal etc.
What I am worried about is thinking of myself as having 'normal' moral standards and thinking of other people's as different. I'm worried about that in a number of contexts such as thinking of myself as having no culture and people of a different culture as having a culture. I'm being problematic for myself I think.
I'm not sure how to approach thinking about this but I would like to avoid categories. Morals feel dangerous to me when wielded by mobs.
Well sure, but many of the personal and cultural differences that people have reflect choices that they have made about certain pressing moral matters. Both the committed polygamist and the committed monogamist, at some point in their life, have to think about the problem of jealousy in personal relationships, etc, etc. Or take another example, in politics, the committed communist-humanitarian argues that personal riches should be taken and redistributed, while the committed philanthropist-capitalist thinks that he should decide upon the extent and nature of the redistribution of his own wealth. Both have, at some point, to face up to questions of liberty and equality, and the fact that they come up with very different answers doesn't mean that both is right. You have to go back and ask them why they have come to these decisions, and try and identify any errors in their reasoning, if you can.
One very valid reason for being conservative is in fact because one wishes to avoid conformity, especially nowadays, since it seems to me that a great deal of the views reflexively held by others are progressive. One thinks of P J O'Rourke's famous observation on seeing a protest by environmentalists. He said that the scary thing was, he agreed with them - but that seeing so many people in agreement with one another, marching, scared him. I think he's right; I don't think morals come from a collective or mass enforcement, and not even really from our personal preferences - but they do inevitably reflect deep personal and intuitive responses to life.
The idea of 'right' is problematic. How is it possible to conclude that something or someone is in fact right given that a moral, just by virtue of its existence for a person, is not necessarily right?
Through an imperfect process of reasoning and inquiry and discussion.
People often tackle the same personal and social problems, and apply the same general standards to it (is this being honest? will this cause another person pain? am I being courageous or cowardly?); it's just that the conclusions and reasoning are different. At root, many of the basic ideas we have about morality may seem strange or unjustified, but that doesn't necessarily make them any less true. If we thought that morality didn't exist, or that it was just a personal/social anomaly, then moral reasoning wouldn't apply at all in our everyday lives. We wouldn't say things like 'he's lying to himself' or 'she's cheating on him' or whatever, since judgments like that would have no meaning whatsoever when taken away from moral notions.
I have little faith in reasoning. This the unfortunate personal burden I carry after sacrificing too much of my life to the study of law. The sum of human reasoning is pointed and disappointing.
Hmmm, but lack of faith in human reasoning and argument can't really be used as an argument for or against a particular conception of morality, can it? It's self-negating. It would just be dishonest and selfish for a person to say, 'All reasoning about moral matters is flawed, so I'm just going to live my life as I want and not worry about any arguments against it.' It's also a possible means for people to dominate and control others - ie, 'the reasoning used to justify your morality is flawed; your moral code therefore has no real basis for existing. Be like the rest of us and you will be free'.
You are right however that was not my intention. It is the evidence of flawed reasoning and its lack of humanity that I find difficult. I am not an advocate of anarchy nor am I in favour of living without considering the reasons for actions or decisions. I think my buried and confused point is that one must be careful not to use the fact that reasoning has been done as evidence of rightness.
Its been a pleasure thinking with you Tim. You've made me think closely and specifically just what it is that I was uncomfortable with. Now is a time that I would type a smiley face if I was that kind of a girl.
Comments
Trust me.
Now it's confirmed.
Btw, I much prefer poetry by people on drugs, not poetry by fat conceited boring people.
Greg McLaren, incidentally, to whom the letter is addressed, is frequently published in Quadrant.
I'm not huge Les Murray fan, really. Occasionally a good poet, often a boring one. Quadrant is my favourite magazine for poetry in Australia, tho'.
Acts of dastardry and derring-dont are common amongst poets, for some reason. As Ivor Indyk said to me once, Aussie poets have a habit of 'squabbling over the spoils' for poetry, which, in Australia, are rather meagre.
I used to read Quadrant regularly, and I enjoy the writing much more than in other Aussie literary journals - I can't stand Overland, and I can't understand Southerly. Quadrant at least has good science fiction published, and that entertaining old fart Peter Ryan.
Not in the pay of the CIA, though I did once, admittedly, get payed for a review I wrote for Quadrant.
Perhaps I have misconstrued or missed your tongue in cheek?
I don't judge people for living different lifestyles to this (I don't *think* I do, anyway), though the personal choices we make do reflect a kind of deeper moral understanding of the world/moral code.
*Oh, wait, actually - I did, once, but, can you guess? I didn't inhale...!
What I am worried about is thinking of myself as having 'normal' moral standards and thinking of other people's as different. I'm worried about that in a number of contexts such as thinking of myself as having no culture and people of a different culture as having a culture. I'm being problematic for myself I think.
I'm not sure how to approach thinking about this but I would like to avoid categories. Morals feel dangerous to me when wielded by mobs.
One very valid reason for being conservative is in fact because one wishes to avoid conformity, especially nowadays, since it seems to me that a great deal of the views reflexively held by others are progressive. One thinks of P J O'Rourke's famous observation on seeing a protest by environmentalists. He said that the scary thing was, he agreed with them - but that seeing so many people in agreement with one another, marching, scared him. I think he's right; I don't think morals come from a collective or mass enforcement, and not even really from our personal preferences - but they do inevitably reflect deep personal and intuitive responses to life.
People often tackle the same personal and social problems, and apply the same general standards to it (is this being honest? will this cause another person pain? am I being courageous or cowardly?); it's just that the conclusions and reasoning are different. At root, many of the basic ideas we have about morality may seem strange or unjustified, but that doesn't necessarily make them any less true. If we thought that morality didn't exist, or that it was just a personal/social anomaly, then moral reasoning wouldn't apply at all in our everyday lives. We wouldn't say things like 'he's lying to himself' or 'she's cheating on him' or whatever, since judgments like that would have no meaning whatsoever when taken away from moral notions.