Doc:// "Persuasion" Rhetoric Curriculum V, Teach and Student Versions

Title: Persuasion
Other description in the title: Rhetoric Curriculum V, Teach and Student Versions
Author: Kitzhaber, Albert R. Oregon Univ.
Date: not easily detected in the document

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED015902.pdf

Dic:// undeserving poor

※ 발췌 (excerpts):

--1. the undeserving poor: peope who are poor because of their own actins and should not get sympathy from other people. (Cambridge Dictionary)


--2. Suspicions of the able-bodied poor runs deep. Policy makers for centuries have gone through phases in whihc they view welfare through the concept of the "deserving and undeserving poor."

Sheila Suess Kennedy, a professor of law and public policy at Indiana University, said the concept harkens back to 15th-century England, where statutes banned charity for people who appeared able to work. They were called "sturdy beggars."

The United States is in such a phase now. When President Lyndon Johnson launched the "War on Povery" in 1964, the prevailing view was that the poor were victimes of circumstances beyond their control. That changed in the 1980s and 1990s. Conservative critiques of the welfare state as a source of debilitating dependency, as well as widespread claims of fraud, eroded support for cash assistane and paved the way for the 1996 overhaul.... (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/the-undeserving-poor/266507/)


--3. If you're asked for money on the street, do you make an instant judgement about whether the payment's deserved? ... ...

Cabinet minister Jeremy Hunt attracted much attention for suggesting the state shouldn't support large families receiving more in benefits than the average wage. ... ...

Mr Hutton says you have to take account of the "luck, circumstance and opportunity" of individuals which can "vary hugely". But I share with Tebbit the view that there is personal agency and you want people to try," he says.

Influential Conservative commentator Tim Montgomerie worked closely with Iain Duncan Smith on developing what has become today's government welfare policy. He dislikes phrases like "undeserving poor" as linked to "historical injustices". ...

In the Victorian and Edwardian periods, it was often the working class that policed its own welfare morality. Historian Jose Harris of Oxford University has studies trade union schemes. A man receiving help "would regularly be visited by a brother from the local union committee, who would make sure he wasn't working on the sly." ...  (https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-11778284)

Excerpts from:// thoughts on Annus Mirabilis by Philip Larkin

출처 1: Mural, some space in the University of Valencia (http://mural.uv.es/): http://mural.uv.es/margapa/philip.htm

ANNUS MIRABILIS

Sexual intercourse began
In nineteen sixty-three
(which was rather late for me) -
Between the end of the ^Chatterley^ ban
And the Beatles' first LP.

Up to then there'd only been
A sort of bargaining,
A wrangle for the ring,
A shame that started at sixteen
And spread to everything.

Then all at once the quarrel sank:
Everyone felt the same,
And every life became
A brilliant breaking of the bank,
A quite unlosable game.

So life was never better than
In nineteen sixty-three
(Though just too late for me)-
Between the end of the Chatterley ban
And the Beatles' first LP.

* * *

HIGH WINDOWS

When I see a couple of kids
And guess he's fucking her and she's
Taking pills or wearing a diaphragm,
I know this is paradise

Everyone old has dreamed of all their lives -
Bonds and gestures pushed to one side
Like an outdated combine harvester,
And everyone young going down the long slide

To happiness, endlessly. I wonder if
Anyone looked at me, forty years back,
And thought, ^That'll be the life;
No God any more, or sweating in the dark^

^About hell and that, or having to hide
What you think of the priest. He
And his lot will all go down the long slide
Like free bloody birds.^ And immediately
Rather than words comes the thought of high windows:
The sun-comprehending glass,
And beyond it, the deep blue air, that shows
Nothing, and is nowhere, and is endless.

* * *

another excerpt from the same source above:

( ... ... ) Sexual Revolution in Larkin' time there were profound changes in matters referring to sex and the contraceptive methods. The sexual revolution refers to a significant hange in sexual behaviour and sexual morality throughout the West (particularly in the US and the UK) in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

The sexual revolution was liberalization after a conservative period. Sex was openly discussed in books and music. Sexual practices that were previously considered unsuitable for discussion, such as oral sex, orgasm and homosexuality, were openly talked about. New methods of contraception allowed men and women to be able to control their own reproduction. ( ... ... )

This sense of a new age of sexual freedom is ironically captured by Philip Larkin, in his poem, "Annus Mirabilis" (1967).

• In line 3, "(which was rather late for me)", the poet is regretting because it was too late for him. Before the sexual revolution came, young men and women always had to think twice before getting intimate because there was a high possibility to produce 'unwanted' or 'unplanned' children. However, with the invention of the pill, most of the young lovers of the 1960s and 1970s did not even have to think twice before making love to each other. 

• In the first stanza of the poem, the author seems to show us that he would like to enjoy such sexual 'advantage'. He gives us an impression in favour of the pill, and although he does not mention it, nevertheless, we have to keep in mind that Larkin is using an ironic tone.

• ( ... ... ) Annus Mirabilis is a Latin expression, so if we translate this ( ... ) the meaning could be more or less 'Impressive Year' or "Admirable Year' (literal translation). Therefore 1963 ( ... ) could be described as Annus Mirabilis because the availability of the pill and the sexual revolution supposed a new culture of 'free love'.

( ... ) Larkin also explores a different kind of change over the time: the change of society's values. Annus Mirabilis is 1963, where "sexual intercourse began" (line 1) , "Between the end of the Chatterley ban / And the Beatles' first LP" (lines 4-5).  These two last facts were very important, as was especially the appearance of Beatles' first LP, now that we have to keep in mind the tremendous importance and influence that this band had for the youths of the 1960s and 1970s.

The general feeling in the 1960s was one of emancipation, liberation, and freedom. The social shift, the revolution, is described in this poem as "up until then there'd only been ... / a shame that started at sixteen'" (line 6-9). "then all at once, the quarrel sank: / everyone felt the same" (line 11-12). ( ... ... )

At the time "Annus Mirabilis", was written, [i.e., 1967,] it was an era ironically illustrated like "a brilliant breaking of the bank" (line 14). Human relationships had changed and before the sexual revolution happened, love was only included inside the boundaries of marriage, and sometimes, marriage was not more than a sort of blackmail, as he says in the poem "wrangle for a ring" (line 8). But this poem should not confuse us because Larkin rejected modernism, as he declared in an essay reprinted in "Required Writing", and in several poems such as "Going Going" and "The Building" (both written in 1972), and above all, we have to keep in mind the ironic tone Larkin is using. ( ... ... )


출처 2: Thanks to Bethany Stuart, https://bethanyasliterature.blogspot.com/2011/03/philip-larkin-annus-mirabilis.html

( ... ... ) The second stanza speaks of of life previously "a wrangle for a ring" portraying the social rule of on sex before marriage and presents how sex before marriage should be cast in "A shame that started at 16". As previously detailed this stanza too has an implicit reading with "A sort of bargaining" even going as far as to suggest the buying and selling of prostitution.

There appears to be a form of excitement involved with this "bargaining" and "wrangle". One could also be as crude to note how the first world in the stanza is "up" etc, etc.

출처 3: https://emmatotmanwiderreading.blogspot.com/2013/04/philip-larkin.html

"Annus Mirabilis" translated from Latin to "years of wonder" is a poem of sexual awakening. It marks the transformation of Larkin and of the country into an era of sexual liberation. ( ... ) Larkin talks about it being "rather late for me", "A wrangle for the ring" and "the quarrel" which endows virginity as a right of passage --something that's desired as a right to coming of age and can almost be viewed as a competition in comparison to peers as in a boxing ring [,] "A wrangle for the ring". This could also have connotations of marriage (a wedding ring), or more explicitly, be a metaphor for a woman's body part. The bargaining depicts sex as material goods to be bought and sold--the superficiality of sex and men's view on women.


출처 4: https://betterlivingthroughbeowulf.com/sexual-intercourse-began-in-1963/

( ... ... )  When he says that "life was never better than / In nineteen sixty three," does he really believe this or (what is more likely) is he just talking about how it felt to glimpse a world where sex could be guilt free? A "year of miracles" where there would no longer be "a wrangle for the ring, / A shame that started at sixteen / And spread to everything"?


출처 5: https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/sexual-nostalgia-cRo9lTq67s

Sexual intercourse began in 1963, famously too late for Philip Larkin. HIs timing was precise, 'Between the end of Chatterley ban / And the Beatles' first LP ...',

Up until then there'd only been
A sort of bargaining,
A wrangle for a ring,
A shame that started at sixteen
And spread to everything.

Larkin's 'wrangle' and 'shame' cling tenaciously in popular memory. Present historiography likewise reads sexual experience before the pill through the lens of 1960s liberation and modernization, finding it narrow, inhibited and wanting. ( ... ... )


출처 6: https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=2x0ey2DBcX4C&pg=PA258&lpg=PA258&dq=Philip+Larkin+wrangle&source=bl&ots=rpQixQzdaw&sig=ACfU3U2Xi8r68jY4cYVa_KXjvaTcxwEi8A&hl=ko&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiVu-Xf4bHmAhVKGaYKHV0fCPkQ6AEwCHoECAkQBA#v=onepage&q=Philip%20Larkin%20wrangle&f=false

( ... ... )

Sexual intercourse began
In nineteen sixty-three
(Which was rather late for me) --
Between the end of the Chatterley ban
And the Beatles' fist LP.

( ... ... ) The poet here means that pre-marital sexual relations became acceptable to all as a part of a new libertarian and consumerist ethic, which is here defined in relation to a best-selling paperback (^Lady Chatterley's Lover^) and a best-selling Long Playing gramophone record of the Beatles who epitomised popular culture in England in the 1960s and 1970s. This is clarified in the next stanza:

Up till then there'd only been
A sort of bargaining,
A wrangle for a ring
A shame that started at sixteen
And spread to everything.

Thus, the firs two stanzas compare and contrast sexual freedom of the present with sexual repression of the past, when marriage ("A wrangle for a ring") was essential for access to sexual experience, and sex outside marriage often led to life-long remorse and still graver consequences.  The third stanza seems to celebrate the time's eager, timely response to the new sexual mores which the poet describes in terms of breaking open the bank of life for all good things that had so long remained confined and prohibited.  ( ... ... )

( ... ... ) During the period between the end of the Chatterley ban and the Beatles' first LP, Victorian morality finally and absolutely died; pornography was legitimized; and sex arrived at the public cinema. The Beatles' first LP began playing to a new breed, miniskirted, barefooted, long-haired and bearded; and who revolt on college campuses, dodge the draft, wear Afro hair styles, smoke grass, rock-and-roll under psychodelic lights, 'blow their minds', 'do their thing,' and would consider the very term 'free-love' a laughable archaism. ( ... ... )

출처 7: Baishakhi Banerjee and P. K. Senapoti, "An Analytical study of some of the poems of Philip Larkin based on his theme of death," ...

( ... ... ) He expresses marriage as a wrangle for a ring. In the past old days, marriage was essential for access of sexual relationship and sex outside marriage was a matter for remorse for lifelong. In those days sex was restricted and the people used to maintain the social ethics. But ultimately the rigidity takes the form of frequent sex making.

출처 8: https://chipputrieslit.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/annus-mirabilis/

( ... ... ) The second stanza speaks of sex as previously "a wrangle for a ring", with "wrangle" suggestive of reluctance and conflict, hinting at the tediousness of having to fulfil the absolute condition of marriage (as represented by the "ring") before sex. In Larkin's younger days, sex before marriage was taboo and seen as "A shame that started at 16 / spread to everything," suggesting that it was almost disease-like in nature and unthinkable. The "sort of bargaining" can suggest prostitution or an idea of a boy negotiating with a girl in order to enjoy sex, and this process is suggestive of tediousness and effort, which directly contrast with the current sexual freedom where "everyone felt the same" and "bargaining" was no longer necessary.

발췌:// some readings on The Righteous Mind by J. Haidt

Excerpts:

1. Jonathan Haidt, https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/28/of-freedom-and-fairness/

Drawing on the work of many anthropologists (particularly Richard Shweder at the University of Chicago) and many evolutionary biologists and psychologists, my colleagues and I came to the conclusion that there are six best candidates for being the taste buds of the moral mind: Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Liberty/Oppression, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, and Sanctity/Degradation.

Moral foundations theory helped to explain the differing responses to those harmless taboo violations (the dog-eating and flag-shredding). Those stories always violated the Loyalty, Authority, or Sanctity foundations in ways that were harmless. My educated American subjects (who, in retrospect, I realize were mostly liberal) generally rejected those three foundations and had a moral “cuisine” built entirely on the first three foundations; so if an action doesn’t harm anyone (Care/Harm), cheat anyone (Fairness/Cheating), or violate anyone’s freedom (Liberty/Oppression), then you can’t condemn someone for doing it. But in more traditional societies, the moral domain is broader. Moral “cuisines” are typically based on all six foundations (though often with much less reliance on Liberty), and it is perfectly sensible to condemn people for homosexual behavior among consenting adults, or other behaviors that challenge traditions or question authority.

**

2. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/the-6-moral-foundations-of-politics/

(1) The Care/Harm Foundation

This foundation makes us sensitive to signs of suffering and need. In order to maximize care and minimize harm, we enact laws that protect the vulnerable. We punish people who are cruel and we care for those in suffering. The left relies primarily on this foundation (and the next one), while the right positions it within a broader matrix of concerns.

(2) The Fairness/Cheating Foundation

This foundation leads us to seek out people who will be good collaborators in whatever project we are pursuing. It also leads us to punish people who cheat the system. People on both the right and the left believe in fairness, but they apply this foundation in different ways. Haidt explains:

“On the left, fairness often implies equality, but on the right it means proportionality – people should be rewarded in proportion to what they contribute, even if that guarantees unequal outcomes” (161).

(3) The Loyalty/Betrayal Foundation

All of us, whether on the right or left, are “tribal” in some sense. We love the people on our team, and loyalty makes our team more powerful and less susceptible to our failure. Likewise, we have a corresponding hatred for traitors. Those who betray our “team” for the other side are worse than those who were already on the other side.

Though Haidt sees both left and right as being tribal, he recognizes “the left tends toward universalism and away from nationalism, so it often has trouble connecting to voters who rely on the Loyalty foundation” (164).

(4) The Authority/Subversion Foundation

Authority plays a role in our moral considerations because it protects order and fends off chaos. Haidt explains:

“Everyone has a stake in supporting the existing order and in holding people accountable for fulfilling the obligations of their station” (168).

Not surprisingly, the right values this foundation, while the left defines itself by opposing hierarchy, inequality, and power.

(5) The Sanctity/Degradation Foundation

No matter the era, humans have always considered certain things “untouchable” for being dirty and polluted. The flipside is that we want to protect whatever is hallowed and sacred, whether objects, ideals, or institutions.

People on the right talk about the sanctity of life and marriage. People on the left may mock “True Love Waits” and purity rings, but they frequent New Age grocery stores, buy products that cleanse them of “toxins,” and warn against human degradation of the environment.

(6) The Liberty/Oppression Foundation

This foundation builds on Authority/Subversion because we all recognize there is such a thing as legitimate authority, but we don’t want authoritarians crossing the line into tyranny. Both the left and the right hate oppression and desire liberty, but for different reasons.

**

3. https://blog.12min.com/the-righteous-mind-summary/

( ... ... ) [C]ontrary to popular belief, morality is probably not founded on reason. Analyzing the reactions of people whose brain damage had petered out their emotional capacity, Antonio Damasio discovered that we may not be "thinking machines which feel," but "feeling machines which think."

[R]easoning makes no difference whatsoever in everyday life, as well. Amost every decision you make, you make it in few seconds, using your intuition, or "gut feeling." You use your reason not to rethink this--but to back it up.

In fact, many studies have shown that rational arguments have little effect. And that's because cognitive dissonance and confirmation biases are almost unbeatable ( ... ... )

In Scientific circles, "The Righteous Mind" is most famous as the book which popularized the Moral Foundation Theory. It was originally proposed by Haidt himself and Jesse Graham.

The idea is simple: morality everywhere is similar because it's based on at least five foundations, which are inherently human. And, which must have developed similarly through the process of evolution. These five foundations are:

(1) care (developed in opposition to [harm])
(2) fairness (vs. cheating),
(3) loyalty (vs. betrayal),
(4) authority (vs. subversion)
(5) sanctity (vs. degradation).

And, for most of the world's societies, they have developed in a fairly similar manner. There's just one small part of the world--the weird part--where morality is more individualized, more liberal, and more fragmentized concept.

And that weird part of the world is us. Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic societies. Or, WEIRD, for short.

( ... ... ) Based on a large-scale study, Haidt and Graham have deduced at least five foundations: care, fairness, loyalty, authority, and sanctity. All of these developed in opposition to some individualistically more appealing traits when early humans started living in communities. That way, care developed in opposition to harm, fairness to cheating, loyalty to betrayal, authority to subversion, and sanctity to degradation.

**

4. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-psychology-of-partisanship/

“Western philosophy has been worshipping reason and distrusting the passions for thousands of years ... There’s a direct line running from Plato through Immanuel Kant to Lawrence Kohlberg. I’ll refer to this worshipful attitude throughout this book as the ^rationalist delusion^.

Intellectuals confuse a more ideal state of affairs for the way things actually are—reason is more often than not rationalization, a justification for ideas developed not in the brain but in the gut. Haidt’s antecedent here is David Hume. Reason plays servant to man’s whims. Man forces the facts to fit his beliefs rather than the reverse. ...

( ... ) The Righteous Mind explains that the rationalist delusion is [:]

the idea that reasoning is our most noble attribute, one that makes us like the gods (for Plato) or that brings us beyond the ‘delusion’ of believing in gods (for the New Atheists). The rationalist delusion is not just a claim about human nature. It’s also a claim that the rational caste (philosophers or scientists) should have more power, and it usually comes along with a utopian program for raising more rational children.

Intelligence is a virtue. So are prudence, integrity, humility, and courage. People who possess the first trait, but lack the latter ones, tend to downplay the importance of their weaknesses and inflate the importance of their strength. The limitations of intelligence are never as glaring as when highbrains advocate intelligence as the panacea for everything. ( ... ... )

Haidt helped devise a questionnaire that gauged moral views by eliciting test-taker responses to statements in five category:

care/harm,
fairness/cheating,
loyalty/betrayal,
authority/subversion,
sanctity/degradation.

( ... ... ) They’re WEIRD—as in Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic. Weirdoes are more like weirdoes in other countries than they are like their fellow countrymen. The author notes of his subjects in Philadelphia and two Brazilian cities that “the effect of social class was much larger than the effect of city. In other words, well-educated people in all three cities were more similar to each other than they were to their lower-class neighbors.”

( ... ... ) They mistake the value system of Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic peoples for the value systems of Third World, uneducated, agrarian, impoverished, oppressed peoples.

**

5. https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/02/jonathan-haidts-the-righteous-mind-part-one/

**

6. https://www.edge.org/conversation/jonathan_haidt-a-new-science-of-morality-part-1

Dic:// 'sans culottes' , references

1. https://alphahistory.com/frenchrevolution/sans-culottes/

2. https://www.thoughtco.com/who-were-the-sans-culottes-1221898

" So why ‘Sans-culottes?’ The name literally means ‘without culottes’, a culotte being a form of knee-high clothing that only the wealthier members of French society wore. By identifying themselves as ‘without culottes’ they were stressing their differences from the upper classes of French society. Together with the Bonnet Rouge and the triple colored cockade, the power of the Sans-culottes was such that this became a quasi-uniform of revolution. Wearing culottes could get you into trouble if you ran into the wrong people during the revolution; as a result, even upper-class French people sported the sans-culottes clothing to avoid potential confrontations. "

3. https://www.britannica.com/topic/sansculotte

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sans-culottes

발췌: Diagrammatic Immanence: Category Theory and Philosophy (2016)

• 출처: Rocco Gangle 지음. Diagrammatic Immanence: Category Theory and Philosophy. Edinburgh University Press, 2016.
• 구글도서: https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=bjVYDwAAQBAJ&dq=Diagrammatic+Immanence:+Category+Theory+and+Philosophy&hl=ko&source=gbs_navlinks_s

※ 출판사 요약:

A renewal of immanent metaphysics through diagrammatic methods and the tools of category theorySpinoza, Peirce and Deleuze are, in different ways, philosophers of immanence. Rocco Gangle addresses the methodological questions raised by a commitment to immanence in terms of how diagrams may be used both as tools and as objects of philosophical investigation. He integrates insights from Spinozist metaphysics, Peircean semiotics and Deleuzes philosophy of difference in conjunction with the formal operations of category theory. Category theory reveals deep structural connections among logic, topology and a variety of different areas of mathematics, and it provides constructive and rigorous concepts for investigating how diagrams work. Gangle introduces the methods of category theory from a philosophical and diagrammatic perspective, allowing philosophers with little or no mathematical training to come to grips with this important field. This coordination of immanent metaphysics, diagrammatic method and category theoretical mathematics opens a new horizon for contemporary thought.


※ 발췌 (excerpt): Introduction

The present book develops an immanent ontology of relations based on the dynamics of formal diagrams. Elements of Spinoza's metaphysics of immanence, Peirce's semiotics and Deleuze's philosophy of difference are here integrated in an ontology of diagrammatic relations expressed formally in the framework of elementary category theory.

The book has three broad goals: to outline an integrative approach to the problem of immanence in Spinoza, Peirce and Deleuze; to develop a model of ontology based on diagrammatic relations; and to introduce some of the most important constructions and basic techniques of category theory to a philosophically but not necessarily mathematically informed audience. The book thus brings together a philosophical concept (immanence), an experimental methodology (diagrams) and a contemporary field of mathematics (categories). ( ... )

The three areas correlate roughly to three central theses:

(1) Immanent metaphysics entails relational ontology.
(2) Diagrams are the appropriate method for investigating immanence immanently.
(3) Category theory is the appropriate mathematics for modelling and investigating diagrams.

The book's overarching airm is to show the inner coherence of these three claims and to suggest something of why contemporary philosophy ought to care about them. ( ... )

Reading Materials

#Quantum_Networking #Plant_Consciousness

A. John Archibald Wheeler (1988). "World as System Self-Synthesized by Quantum Networking." In: Agazzi E. (eds) Probability in the Sciences. Synthese Library (Studies in Epistemology, Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science), vol 201. Springer, Dordrecht.

─. Source: Springer (PDF);

─. Abstract:

The quantum, strangest featrue of this strange universe cracks the armor that conceals the secret of existence. In contrast to the view that the universe is a machine governed by some magic equation, we explore here the view that the world is a self-synthesizing system of existence, built on observer-participancy via a network of elementary quantum phenomena. The elementary quantum phenomenon in the sense of Bohr, the elementary act of observer-participancy, develops definiteness out of indeterminism, secures a communicable reply in response to a well-defined question. The rate of carrying out such yes-no determinations, and their accumulated number, are both minuscule today when compared to the rate and number to be anticipated in the billions of years yet to come. The coming explosion of life opens the door, no minor part of what we call ^its^ past─^our^ past, present, and future─but this whole vast world.

─. Contents and some excepts:

1. The World: A Great Machine Or A Great Idea?

2. No Continuum

3. The Lesson of the Elementary Quantum Phenomenon

4. Austerity

5. Timelessness

6. The World of Existences as a System Self-Synthesized by Quantum Networking

No time, no law, no machinery and no continuum: Four clues ....

We see how powerful our four clues are when we compare and contrast the schematic diagram of Figure 1 for the world as a system self-synthesized by quantum networking with two other self-synthesizing systems, the mordern worldwide telecommunications system and life.

7. Great Question

* * *


B. František Baluška (Editor), Monica Gagliano (Goodreads Author) (Editor), Guenther Witzany (Editor). "Memory and Learning in Plants."

─. Goodreads Link


C. Elizabeth Pennisi. "Plants communicate distress using their own kind of nervous system." Science. Sep. 13, 2018.

발췌: Charles Peirce and Jastrow

출처 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Jastrow

※ 발췌 (excerpt):

( ... ... ) During his doctoral studies at Johns Hopkins University, Jastrow worked with C. S. Peirce on experiments in psychophysics that introduced randomization and blinding for a repeated measures design. ( ... ... )

The Peirce-Jastrow experiment is increasingly recognized as the first properly randomized experiment, which led to psychology (and education) having laboratories for and textbooks on randomized experiments (decades before Ronald A. Fisher).



출처 2: Charles Sander Peirce and Joseph Jastrow (1885). "On the Small Differences in Sensation," First published in Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences, 3, 73-83.
Presented 17 October 1884

• 자료 2-1: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Peirce/small-diffs.htm 
• 자료 2-2: https://philpapers.org/archive/PEIOSD.pdf

※ 발췌 (excerpt):

( ... ... ) We have experimented with the pressure sense, observing the proportion of errors among judgments as to which is the greater of two pressure, when it is known that the two are two stated pressures, and the question presented for the decision of the observer is, which is which? From the probability, thus ascertained, of committing an error of a given magnitude, the probable error of a judgment can be calculated according to the mathematical theory of errors.  ( ... ... )

Throughout our observations we noted the degree of confidence with which the observer gave his judgment upon a scale of four degrees, as follows:

0: denoted absence of any preference for one answer over its opposite, so that it seemed nonsensical to answer at all.
1: denoted a distinct leaning to one alternative.
2: denoted some little confidence of being right.
3: denoted as strong a confidence as one would have about such sensations.

( ... ... )


( ... ... ) In the case of Mr. Peirce as subject (it many be noted that Mr. Peirce is left-handed, while Mr. Jastrow is strongly right-handed) the tip of forefinger, and in the case of Mr. Jastrow of the middle finger, of the left hand were used. In addition, a screen served to prevent the subject from having any indications whatever of the movements of the operator. It is hardly necessary to say that that we were fully on guard against unconsciously received indications.

The observation were conducted in the following manner: At each sitting three differential weights were employed. At first we always began and ended with the heaviest, but at a later period the plan was to begin on alternative days with the lightest and heaviest. When we began with the heaviest 25 observations were made with that; then 25 with the middle one, and then 25 with the lightest; this constituted one-half of the sitting. It was completed by three more sets of 25, the order of the weights being reversed. When we began with the lightest the heaviest was used for the third and fourth sets. In this way 150 experiments on each of us were taken at one sitting of two hours.

A pack of 25 cards were taken, 12 red and 13 black, or vice versa, so that in the 50 experiments made at one sitting with a given differential weight, 25 red and 25 black cards should be used. These cards were cut exactly square and their corners were distinguished by holes punched in them so as to indicate the scale of numbers (0, 1, 2, 3) used to designate the degree of confidence of the judgment. The back of these cards were distinguished from their faces. They were, in fact, made of ordinary playing-cards. At the beginning of a set of 25, the pack was well shuffled, and the operator and subject having taken their places, the operator was governed by the color of the successive cards choosing whether he should first diminish weight and then increase it, or vice versa. If the weight was to be first increased and then diminished the operator brought the pressure exerted by the kilogram alone upon the finger of the subject by means of the lever and cam mentioned above, and when the subject said "change" he gentley lowered the differential weight, resting in the small pan, upon the pan of the balance. ( ... ... )

발췌

출처: Owen Davies, Witchcraft, Magic and Culture, 1736-1951,


※ 발췌 (excerpt):

p.287~ :

( ... ... ) In terms of personal sickness, insuranace conver began to have a social impact only from the early 20th century onwards. The first general accident and sickness insurance policy was available in 1900 and proved popular among the self-employed. The growth of the popular insurance market undoubtedly contributed to a general easing of the severity of misfortune in terms of agricultural production and personal health. ( ... ... )

The social transformation that have just been outlined led to the creation of the following five interrelated circumstances, which effectively hampered the mechanisms that had produced accusations of witchcraft within any given community, and ultimately resulted in the declining belief in witchcraft.

Communal instability

Witchcraft accusations were generated in a social environment where there was a considerable degree of long-term social stability, and where there was an intimacy of association in which one person's affairs were the affairs of the whole community. ( ... ... ) Those bonds of intimacy and association that bound the community together in terms of work and leisure, unified it with a sense of a shared past and present, gradually fell away with the decline of the barter economy, the advent of mechanisation, and as a result of the rupture this brought about between all levels of rural society. With the exodus of the young and the death of the old, with the break-up of estates, the increasing turnover of tenancies and the influx of newcomers, the stream of inherited oral tradition ran dry.  ( ... ... )


Decline of self-governance and the intrusion of state and local government

( ... ... )




p. 294~ :


The experience of misfortune has changed profoundly in our predominantly urban, welfare society. Once the state began to provide more securities in life, such as pensions, unemployment benefits, national insurance and subsidies, and with the extension of universal suffrage and basic human rights, not only was the scope and impact of misfortune mitigated, but blame for the experience of misfortune began to be apportioned to the failures of these welfare mechanisms. In our modern social climate, people are far more aware of the national and global factors influencing their lives in political, economic and environmental terms. While financial hardship no longer results from the death of a pig or a cow, for instance, the reduction of European subsidies constitutes a serious case of misfortune for farmers. As a result, the bureaucrats in Brussels rather than village witches are now the scapegoats in farming communities. Nevertheless, although the actions of the mass of the people are no longer strongly bound by occult forces, they continue to maintain a variety of observances to ward off misfortune. However, such practices are no longer employed against individuals who emanate supernatural malign influence, but against an impersonal, abstract conception of bad luck. Many people also retain a fascination with the professed ability to interpret occult forces. The belief in fortune-telling continues, for instance, because it functions as a means of assuaging personal insecurities about the future. The expression of these insecurities may have changed over the centuries, but the fundamental fear of being hurt, emotionally or financially, will always lead people to seek comfort in the realm of magic.

In other words, the popular belief in the supernatural has continued by a process of adaptation to changing perceptions of the world. Thus the inexplicable, violent movement of objects, supernatural stone-throwing and bed-rocking, which were once attributed to witchcraft, are now seriously explained in terms of poltergeist activity. Is the former explanation any more 'irrational' than the latter? And although few people still believe in fairies and fairy abduction, many now believe in UFOs, egg-headed aliens, and alien abduction. Stories of such encounters are probably as widely deliberated in modern mass culture as stories of fairies were in the old rural culture. ( ... ... )

발췌 2: 대실 해밋// Flitcraft parable

※ 발췌: 출처, "G In The Air," in his Maltese Falcon


─ 1. 우화의 시작:

( ... ... )

A man named Flitcraft had left his real-estate-office, in Tacoma, to go to luncheon one day and had never returned. He did not keep an engagement to play golf after four that afternoon, though he had taken the initiative in making the engagement less than half an hour before he went out to luncheon. His wife and children never saw him again. His wife and he were supposed to be on the best of terms. He had two children, boys, one five and the other three. He owned his house in a Tacoma suburb, a new Packard, and the rest of the appurtenances of successful American living.

( ... ... )

─ 2. 중간:

(Spade put the telephoe down and told her: “He'll be up in a few minutes.) Well, that was in 1922. In 1927 I was with one of the big detective agencies in Seattle. Mrs. Flitcraft came in and told us somebody had seen a man in Spokane who looked a lot like her husband. I went over there. It was Flitcraft, all right. He had been living in Spokane for a couple of years as Charles--that was his first name--Pierce. He had an automobile-business that was netting him twenty or twenty-five thousand a year, a wife, a baby son, owned his home in a Spokane suburb, and usually got away to play golf after four in the afternoon during the season.”

Spade had not been told very definitely what to do when he found Flitcraft. They talked in Spade's room at the Davenport. Flitcraft had no feeling of guilt. He had left his first family well provided for, and what he had done seemed to him perfectly reasonable. The only thing that bothered him was a doubt that he could make that reasonableness clear to Spade. He had never told anybody his story before, and thus had not had to attempt to make its reasonableness explicit. He tried now.

“I got it all right,” Spade told Brigid O'Shaughnessy, “but Mrs. Flitcraft never did. She thought it was silly. Maybe it was. Anyway, it came out all right. She didn't want any scandal, and, after the trick he had played on her--the way she looked at it--she didn't want him. So they were divorced on the quiet and everything was swell all around.

“Here's what had happened to him. Going to lunch he passed an office-building that was being put up--just the skeleton. A beam or something fell eight or ten stories down and smacked the sidewalk alongside him. It brushed pretty close to him, but didn't touch him, though a piece of the sidewalk was chipped off and flew up and hit his cheek. It only took a piece of skin off, but he still had the scar when I saw him. He rubbed it with his finger--well, affectionately--when he told me about it. He was scared stiff of course, he said, but he was more shocked than really frightened. He felt like somebody had taken the lid off life and let him look at the works.”

Flitcraft had been a good citizen and a good husband and father, not by any outer compulsion, but simply because he was a man who was most comfortable in step with his surroundings. He had been raised that way. The people he knew were like that. The life he knew was a clean orderly sane responsible affair. Now a falling beam had shown him that life was fundamentally none of these things. He, the good citizen-husband-father, could be wiped out between office and restaurant by the accident of a falling beam. He knew then that men died at haphazard like that, and lived only while blind chance spared them.

─ 3. (2)의 연속:

It was not, primarily, the injustice of it that disturbed him: he accepted that after the first shock. What disturbed him was the discovery that in sensibly ordering his affairs he had got out of step, and not into step, with life. He said he knew before he had gone twenty feet from the fallen beam that he would never know peace again until he had adjusted himself to this new glimpse of life. By the time he had eaten his luncheon he had found his means of adjustment. Life could be ended for him at random by a falling beam: he would change his life at random by simply going away. He loved his family, he said, as much as he supposed was usual, but he knew he was leaving them adequately provided for, and his love for them was not of the sort that would make absence painful.

─ 4. (3)에서 이어짐. 우화의 끝:

“He went to Seattle that afternoon,” Spade said, “and from there by boat to San Francisco. For a couple of years he wandered around and then drifted back to the Northwest, and settled in Spokane and got married. His second wife didn't look like the first, but they were more alike than they were different. You know, the kind of women that play fair games of golf and bridge and like new salad-recipes. He wasn't sorry for what he had done. It seemed reasonable enough to him. I don't think he even knew he had settled back naturally into the same groove he had jumped out of in Tacoma. But that's the part of it I always liked. He adjusted himself to beams falling, and then no more of them fell, and he adjusted himself to them not falling.”

발췌: 대실 해밋// Flitcraft parable

─ 1. 이전 검색: http://hsalbert.blogspot.com/2017/11/flitcraft-parable.html


─ 2. 발췌 (excerpt): 출처, "G In The Air," in his Maltese Falcon

Spade had not been told very definitely what to do when he found Flitcraft. They talked in Spade's room at the Davenport. Flitcraft had no feeling of guilt. He had left his first family well provided for, and what he had done seemed to him perfectly reasonable. The only thing that bothered him was a doubt that he could make that reasonableness clear to Spade. He had never told anybody his story before, and thus had not had to attempt to make its reasonableness explicit. He tried now.

이야기의 이 부분에서 스페이드가 전하는 이야기:

• 플릿크래프는 아무런 죄책삼을 느끼지 않았다. 
• 그는 자신이 이전 가족을 떠났을 때 그들이 넉넉히 누리고 살고 있었다는 것을 지적했다. 가족을 떠났던 자신의 행동은 전적으로 합리적이었다고 생각하는 듯했다. 
• 플릿크래프트가 불편해했던 유일한 점은 자신이 느꼈던 그 합리성을 스페이드에게 분명히 전할 수 있을지 미심쩍었다[자신이 없었다, doubt]는 점이었다. 
• 플릿크래프는 이전에 한 번도 그 이야기를 꺼냈던 적이 없었던지라 자신의 그 행동이 합리적인 것이었음을 분명히 표현하려고 시도해야 했던 적이 없었다.

─ 3. 한편 이야기의 이 부분을 다른 저자가 다음과 같이 묘사한다.

Flitcraft/Pierce expressed no apparent remorse, pointing out to Spade that his previous family was well provided for. Nonetheless, Flitcraft/Pierce was anxious to relay to Spade an explanation, as he'd never told anyone what happened. (Chapter 1, in Mihir Desai, Wisdom of Finance)

─. 4 형용사 anxious에 대한 용례 설명

     Usage Note (American Heritage 5th edn):

Anxious has a long history of use as a synonym for eager, but some prefer that anxious be used only to describe those who are worried or uneasy, as in the sentence He's anxious about his upcoming surgery. The acceptability of anxious to mean eager has been increasing, however. In our 1999 survey of the Usage Panel, 47 percent approved of the sentence We are anxious to see the new show of British sculpture at the museum, whereas in 2014, this sentence was acceptable to 57 percent of panelists. The acceptability was higher for this usage in a sentence about a situation with a tinge of uneasiness: After a four-hour bus ride, the children were anxious to get outside (acceptable to 69 percent of the Panel in 1999 and 78 percent in 2014). Although resistance to the use of anxious to mean eager is waning, writers should be aware that there are still those who frown upon using the word in situations where no anxiety is present.

요약: anxious to V는 초조와 불안이 개입되지 않는 상황에서 열렬한 욕구/욕망만을 표현하는 데 쓰지 않는 것이 좋다.

[니체, 도덕의 계보학] 제2논문 8절의 재검토

─. 이전 검색과 발췌:

• 영문 텍스트 차례와 링크: F. Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals: A Polemical Tract (1887). 그중 프롤로그 발췌.

• 번역서 1의 발췌 : 《선악의 저편·도덕의 계보》 김정현 옮김. 책세상 펴냄 (2002/2006)

─. 번역서 2: 《도덕의 계보학: 하나의 논박서》 홍성광 옮김. 연암서가 펴냄 (2011/2017)

※ 그중 제2논문 〈'죄', '양심의 가책' 그리고 이와 유사한 것〉의 8절의 발췌:

우리의 원래 연구로 되돌아가 본다면, 죄책감과 개인적인 의무감은 이미 우리가 살펴본 바처럼, 존재하는 가장 오래되고 가장 근원적인 개인 관계에, 즉 구매자와 판매자, 채권자와 채무자 사이의 관계에 그 기원을 두었다. 즉 여기에서 우선 개인이 개인과 상대하였으며, 여기에서 우선 개인이 개인과 서로 견주었던 것이다.

아무리 저급한 문명이라 하더라도 이러한 관계가 약간이나마 드러나지 않은 문명이 발견되지 않은 적은 아직 없었다. 값을 정하고 가치를 측정하며 등가물을 생각해 내서 교환하는 일─이러한 것은 어떠한 의미에서는 사고 그 자체라 할 수 있을 정도로 인간의 가장 원초적 사고를 지배하고 있었다. 여기에서 가장 오래된 종류의 명민성이 개발되었고, 마찬가지로 여기에서 인간의 자긍심이나 다른 동물에 대한 우월감의 싹이 최초로 키워진 것으로 추측할 수 있다. 아마 '인간Mensch(manas)'이라는 우리의 단어 또한 바로 이러한 자부심 같은 것을 표현하는 것이리라. 인간이란 가치를 재고 평가하고 측정하는 존재로, ‘평가하는 동물 자체’로 특징지어졌다.

구매와 판매는 그 심리적인 부속물과 아울러 심지어 어떠한 종류의 사회 조직이나 사회 집단의 시초보다도 더 오래된 것이다. 오히려 교환, 계약, 죄, 권리, 의무, 보상 등의 싹이 되는 감정은, 힘과 힘을 비교하고 재며 헤아려보는 습관과 더불어, 개인의 권리라는 가장 초보적인 형태에서 가장 조야하고 가장 원시적인 공동체 복합체(이것을 다른 유사한 복합체와 비교해 볼 때)로 옮아갔다. 이리하여 인간의 눈은 이제 이러한 관점에 초점을 맞추게 되었다. 움직이기는 어렵지만 일단 움직이기 시작하면 단호하게 같은 방향으로 계속 나아가는 고대 인류의 사고에 특유한 저 굼뜬 일관성으로,  사람들은 곧바로 '어느 사물에나 가격이 있다. 모든 것에는 대가가 치러질 수 있다'고 뭉뚱그려 일반화하게 되었다. 이것은 정의에 관한 가장 오래되고 가장 순진한 도덕규범이며, 지상에서의 온갖 '선량함', 온갖 '공정성', 온갖 '선의', 온갖 '객관성'의 시작이었던 것이다. 이러한 최초의 단계에서 정의란 거의 동등한 힘을 가진 사람들끼리 서로 타협하고 조정을 통해 다시 '합의'를 보려는 선의이며, 그리고 보다 힘이 떨어지는 사람들에 관련해서는 그들끼리 조정에 이르도록 강요하는 선의이다.

─. 위 번역서 1 중  같은 부분(제2논문  8절)의 발췌:

우리의 연구 과정을 다시 시작해본다면, 죄의 감정과 개인적인 의무의 감정은 이미 우리가 보아왔듯이, 그 기원을 존재하는 가장 오래되고 근원적인 개인 관계에, 즉 파는 자와 사는 자, 채권자와 채무자의 관계에 두고 있다 : 여기에서 비로소 개인이 개인과 상대했으며, 여기에서 비로소 개인인 스스로를 개인과 견주었다. 이러한 관계를 이미 인정할 수 없을 정도로 저급한 문명은 발견된 적이 없다. 값을 정하고 가치를 측정하고 등가물을 생각해내며 교환하는 것─이것은 어떤 의미에서 사유라고 할 수 있을 만한 인간의 원초적 사유를 미리 지배하고 있었다 : 여기에서 가장 오래된 종류의 명민함이 길러졌고, 마찬가지로 여기에서 인간이 다른 동물에 대해 가진 긍지나 우월감의 싹도 최초로 얻었다고 추정할 수 있을 것이다. 아마 '인간manas'이라는 우리의 용어도 바로 이러한 자기 감정의 그 무엇인가를 표현하는 것이리라 : 인간이란 가치를 재고 평가하고 측정하는 존재, ‘평가하는 동물 자체’로 묘사된다. 사고 파는 것은 심리적인 부속물과 더불어, 심지어는 어떤 사회 조직 형태나 집단의 시초보다 더 오래된 것이다 : 오히려 교환, 계약, 죄, 권리, 의무, 보상 등의 감정의 싹은, 동시에 힘과 힘을 비교하고 측정하고 계산하는 습관과 더불어, 개인의 권리라는 가장 초보적 형식에서 이제 가장 조야하고 원시적인 사회 복합체 (다른 유사한 복합체와 비교하여)로 ^이행^했다. 눈에 이제 이러한 관점에 초점을 맞추게 되었다 : 움직이기는 어렵지만 일단 움직이기만 하면 단호하게 같은 방향으로 계속 나아가는 고대인의 사유에 특유한 저 둔중한 일관성으로, 곧 "어느 사물이나 그 가격을 지닌다. 모든 것은 대가로 지불될 수 있다"는 중요한 일반화에 이른 것이다.─ 이것은 정의의 가장 오래되고 소박한 도덕의 규준이며, 지상에서의 모든 '호의', 모든 '공정', 모든 '선한 의지', 모든 '객관성'의 발단이다. 이러한 최초 단계에서의 정의란 거의 동등한 힘을 지니고 있는 사람들 사이에서 서로 타협하고 조정을 통해 다시 '합의'하려는 좋은 의지이다.─ 그리고 힘이 열등한 자에 관해 말하자면, 그들 상호간에 조정할 수 있도록 강제하는 선한 의지인 것이다.─

─. 위 영문 텍스트의 같은 부분 발췌:

To resume the path of our enquiry, the feeling of guilt, of personal obligation has, as we saw, its origin in the oldest and most primitive personal relationship there is, in the relationship between seller and buyer, creditor and debtor. Here for the first time one person moved up against another person, here an individual measured himself against another individual. We have found no civilization still at such a low level that something of this relationship is not already perceptible. To set prices, to measure values, to think up equivalencies, to exchange things—that preoccupied man’s very first thinking to such a degree that in a certain sense it’s what thinking itself is. Here the oldest form of astuteness was bred; here, too, we can assume are the first beginnings of man’s pride, his feeling of pre-eminence in relation to other animals. Perhaps our word “man” (manas) continues to express directly something of this feeling of the self: the human being describes himself as a being which assesses values, which values and measures, as the “inherently calculating animal.” Selling and buying, together with their psychological attributes, are even older than the beginnings of any form of social organizations and groupings; out of the most rudimentary form of personal legal rights the budding feeling of exchange, contract, guilt, law, duty, and compensation was instead first transferred to the crudest and earliest social structures (in their relationships with similar social structures), along with the habit of comparing power with power, of measuring, of calculating. The eye was now adjusted to this perspective, and with that awkward consistency characteristic of thinking in more ancient human beings, hard to get started but then inexorably moving forward in the same direction, people soon reached the great generalization: “Each thing has its price, everything can be paid off”—the oldest and most naive moral principle of justice, the beginning of all “good nature,” all “fairness,” all “good will,” all “objectivity” on earth. Justice at this first stage is good will among those approximately equal in power to come to terms with each other, to “come to an agreement” again with each other by compensation—and in relation to those less powerful, to compel them to arrive at some settlement among themselves.—

... ...

[발췌: Some context] Codes of the Underworld

※ 발췌 (excerpts):

출처 1: Ray Fisman and Tim Sullivan, The Inner Lives of Markets,  Public Affairs, 2016. p. 68.

Why do gangs in particular resort to such extreme measures? ( ... ... ) Online shoppers have nothing on the aspiring criminal mastermind in their need for credible signals. Suppose you want to rob a bank and need someone on the inside to help you with the job. Or you want to trade a few spare bars of enriched uranium that you grabbed in the chaos of the Soviet Union's collapse for an appropriate sum of money. How do you figure out which bank teller will be a trustworthy partner and which will contact the police? Which prospective buyers are fronting for the North Koreans and which ones are fronting for interpol? As Gambetta writes , "Given these propensities, one wonders how criminals ever manage to do anything together."


출처 2: ­ Diego Gambetta, Codes of the Underworld: How Criminals Communicate, Princeton University Press, 2009. 구글도서.

 Introduction, pp.ⅷ~

( ... ... ) Yet economists, who have developed sophisticated theoretical means to model information, have enough troubles collecting data on the world of ordinary business to bother with the underworld.

The study of criminal communications has also fallen between the stools of two common views, which reinforce each other. One pertains to how communication is understood in general. It is still all too frequent, even among scholars, to think of communication as symbolic communication or, more narrowly still, as linguistic communication. Words are set in opposition to actions, thereby inserting a bogus demarcation, as if actions could be undertaken only for tangible purposes rather than or communicative ends. ( ... ... ) Yet, even violent acts, as I hope to show, often have communicative purpose.

Because of the nature of their business, criminals have a lot to lose by misreading signs or emitting signals that are misread (unless they want them to be misread). They are thus driven to draw from a large repertoire of communicative options, some of which will come as a surprise to law-abiding readers. For instance, an insurance salesman who wishes to know whether a certain establishment is already insured can just as. But a mafioso who wants to discover whether a certain bar or restaurant is already "mobbled up"─under someone's protection, that is─cannot risk asking directly. He must look for subtle signs. FBI agent Joe Pistone, who infiltrated the mob under the same Donnie Brasco, wrote that Benjamin "Lefty Guns" Ruggiero "would size the place up, look for little things":

( ... ... )

Criminals face severe constraints on communication imposed by the action of the law, and, unlike the rest of us, cannot easily develop institutions aimed at circumventing them. This central feature of criminal lives makes communication and above all ^reliable^ communication exceptionally hard to sustain. ( ... ... )


Chapter 2 The Power of Limits, pp.30~

The problem of trust faced by all kinds of businesses, intensified, haunts the underworld. How does one know whether to trust others, and, conversely how does one persuade others that one is trustworthy (whether this is true or not)? Both questions are ceaselessly pressing for criminals, and if the reader takes a mental step into a criminal's boots, it is not difficult to see why. First, criminals operate under greater ^constraints^ that can force them to default on their agreements even if they do not want to, simply because the end up in prison or have to go on the run. In this sense they are not so much untrustworthy as unreliable, more likely to have "accidents."  Next, they have greater ^opportunities^ to renege on their agreements. While the secrecy in which they operate acts as a constraint, it can also be turned to their advantage, as they can vanish more easily. Cheats, furthermore, do not have to fear the law when they dupe other criminals, for the dupes have no access to legal protection. Third, they are more likely to have ^motivations^ to defect than most ordinary people do, as they are driven by selfish goals and disregard the property or even the lives of others. Fourth, they are more likely to have the ^dispositions^ to defect, for they are more prone than most to take risks. They are alos likely to feel bound by norms and be deterred by punishment than law-abiding citizens are.

Thus, by solving the problem discussed in chapter 1 and identifying each other as bona fide criminals, they also unavoidably let each other know that they have those constraints, opportunities, motivations, and dispositions, thereby landing themselves in what we may call the villain's paradox: a criminal needs partners who are also criminals, but these are typically untrustworthy people to deal with when their self-interest is at stake. To be more precise, one may be able to trust a criminal partner in certain respect─to act rationally under pressure and keep his sangfroid, for example, and to respond violently or even kill if necessary. One can trust one's partner to be a competent robber. But when it comes to sharing the booty, when interests are in conflict, it is hard to trust one criminal to show concern for another. While citizens can hope to find trustworthy-making features in other people's characters, villains typically cannot. Criminals embody ^homo economicus^ at his rawest, and they know it. In keeping with the evidence that people who are untrustworthy are also more likely to think that others are untrustworthy,[주]1 criminals are more inclined to distrust each other than ordnary people do. ( ... ... ) for instance that 58 percent of inmates agreed with the statement "one cannot be too careful in one's dealing with other people," while in the control group only 28 percent agreed.[주]2

Crime fiction, whether in writing or film, often exploits the tensions that arise from distrust (which may further enhance distrust among real criminals, who, as we shall see in chapter 10, are affected by fiction).  ( ... ... )

The evidence for loyalty in the real underworld, however, is close to nonexistent. True, there is a bias due to the fact that when things go wrong we are more likely to hear about them than when they go smoothly. Yet the evidence of cheating and betrayal is just too large to think that the problem of untrustworthiness troubles the underworld in merely the same way as it does ordinary business. Criminals dupe each other, all too easily yielding to their raw self-interest. Among a group of bid drug dealers in the Netherlands who were the object of research based on a very large documentation, "betrayal and double-crossing were habitual for many of the criminal entrepreneurs, leading to mutual distrust and returning flicks of paranoia."[주]5  The lives of British career criminals recounted by Dick Hobbs are replete with episodes of mistrust and cheating.[주]6  When offered the right incentives, even many mafiosi, allegedly the most loyal of the lot, have turned state's evidence and betrayed their former friends, bothe in the United States and in Italy.

Given these propensities, one wonders how criminals can ever manage to do anything together. This puzzle has long been recognized. In Plato's ^Republic^ Socrates asks Trasymachus, who claims that injustice is a source of strength, "please [tell me] whether you think that a city, or an army, or a band of robbers or thieves, or any other company which pursue some unjust end in common, would be able to effect anything if they were unjust to one another?" If they had been thoroughly unjust─Socrates concludes─they could not have kept their hands off one another. Clearly they must have possessed justice of a sort, enough to keep them from exercising their injustice on each other at the same time as on their victms. ... the throrough villains who are perfectly unjust, are also perfectly incapable of action."[주]7  Yet, while many have raised the issue, the explanations of what could possibly support some "justice of a sort" are not often satisfactory, and merit a fresh look.

In this chapter I do not have the ambition to cover all the ways in which criminals solve or circumvent the problem of trust. Here I discuss mostly a very odd way in which a trustee can persuade a truster that it is in the trustee's own interest to be trustworthy─by displaying his own incompetence. In the next chapter, I will explore how the same goal can be achieved by revealing information about one's own bad deeds. First, however, I approach the matter from the point of view of the truster, the criminal who is worried about his partner's trustworthiness. What can he do?


VIOLENCE AND ITS DRAWBACKS  (on p. 33)

( ... ... )

[약식 서평: Diego Gambetta's] Codes of the Underworld: How Criminals Communicate

출처: Codes of the Underworld: How Criminals Communicate (Tyler Cowen, 2009년 8월)

※ 발췌 (excerpt):

That's the new book by Diego Gambetta and it is the best applied book on signaling theory to date.  Gambetta's task is well summarized by a single sentence:

Given these propensities, one wonders how criminals ever manage to do anything together.

The signaling problems faced by criminals are unusual in the following regard. On one hand they wish to signal a certain untrustworthiness, namely that they are criminals in the first place. This is useful for both meeting other criminals and also for intimidating potential victims. On the other hand, the criminals wish to signal that they are potentially cooperative, for the purpose of working with other criminals. Sending these dual signals isn't easy and Gambetta well understands the complexity of the task at hand. As Henry points out, facial tattoos are one particular effective method of signaling that one is a criminal for life.

Here is a passage which I found striking: ( ... ... )

Gambetta wonders whether women in prison resort to violence so frequently because they have fewer alternative means of signaling toughness.

[자료: 월리스 스티븐스] The Necessary Angel

출처: Wallace Stevens. The Necessary Angel: Essays on Reality and the Imagination.
자료: archive.org


1. The Novel Rider and the Sounds of Words (1)

2. The Figure of the Youth as Virile Poet  (37)

3. Three Academic Pieces  (69)

4. About One of Marianne Moore's Poems  (91)

5. Effects of Analogy  (105)

6.  Imagination as Value  (131)

7. The Relations between Poetry and Painting  (157)

[탐색] 소크라테스와 화폐, 경제

출처 1: Barry Gordon. "Four Issues in Socratic Economic Analysis", Chapter 3 in Economic Analysis before Adam Smith. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 1975. 제한적 자료.

※ 발췌 (excerpt): pp. 42-43,

The philosophers did not leave a legacy which merely recommended a manner of approach to economic issues. Their concern with the origins of social lie and the maintenance of just relationships within in gave rise to a series of insights on particular problems in economics. Apart from those noted above in conncection with their conception of economics, these insights included influential analyses touching on the theories of money and interest, the question of communal versus private ownership of resources, and the theory of value. The contributions of Aristotle in these areas are of special significance for the future development of economic thought in Europe. It is quite impossible to chart the course of that development without appreciation of the positions he took and the ways in which those positions were interpreted. As one modern scholar has observed, 'Aristotle's influence on medieval city economy exerted through Thomas Acquinas was as great as later that of Adam Smith and David Ricardo on 19th century world economy.'[주]1

Opinion is divided sharply on whether or not Aristotle's widespread influence was something which economicsts should welcome in retrospect. For one writer, Aristotle is 'the first analytical economist', and it is he 'who laid the foundations of science and who first posed the economic problems with which all later thinkers have been concerned.'[주]2  For another, Aristotelian economic theory 'was to exert an influence both far-reaching and disastrous over historicans and theologians of succeeding centuries.' This second writer sees Aritotle's 'primitivism and ruralism' a dead weight which inhibited the thinkers of Rome and middle ages, such that tendencie to genuine economic analysis were thwarted. In particular Aristotle was an arch-enemy of economics, since he was equipped with 'a mind that never really understood what currency was' and turned his back on any 'prospect of indefinite increae of real wealth'.[주]3  That such a difference of opinion should exist is explained to a great extent by the combination of bold analytical initiative and sometimes puzzling failures encountered in the analyses considered in this chapter.

The nature and functions of money

In the ^Republic^, Plato recognize that the presence of a division of labour in society gives rise to the need for exchange of commodities amongst its citizens. The process of exchange will be facilitated by the introduction of 'a currency to serve as a token for purposes of exchange'. The end or purpose of money then is its action as a medium of exchange, and for this function a mere symbol or token can suffice.[주]4  The material of which money is composed is of little or no account.

Here, Plato is adoptin a theory of money which can be called 'non-metallist'. Money, to function effectively as money, need not consist of a material that has a value independent of its role as money. Community contract or state fiat establishes the status of something as the medium of exchange. There is no necesary 'commodity' dimension to that medium because of its substance. That Plato was consistent in his non-metallism is illustrated by a passage from the ^Laws^, his last written work. In this passage he advocates a type of policy that was anathema to orthodox monetary theorists of 18th- and 19th-century Europe. He proposes a divorce between international trading currency and the internal circulating medium of the city-state. The latter, he believes, should be devoid of intrinsic, ( ... ... )


출처 2: D.C. Schindler. "Why Socrates Didn't Charge: Plato and the Metaphysics of Money", Communio International Catholic Review, Fall 2009.

※ 발췌 (excerpt):

( ... ... ) There are two points to note here that in fact converge into one, which will be the primary point explored in the present essay. In the first place, Socrates' claim about his own motivation implies that there is a connection between sophistry and money-making. While this implication may not strike one as a great revelation, given that it is a regular and well-known theme in Plat's dialogues,[주]3  we intend to argue that the connection is more essential than typically realized, and that understanding the connection reveals something in turn about the nature of both sophistry and money. Secondly, and perhaps less obviously, Socrates' approach to the charges suggests an intriguing either-or: money ^would^ have been sufficient to explain his activity, so that its removal as a cause requires something else, in this case a reference to "the god at Dephi."  To put it over-simply, money and God appear as competitors for the role of the good that is adequate to explain human behavior. When St. Paul says that the love of money is the root of evil, it would seem that he is echoing a Platonic insight. Our aim in the following is to understand what it is about the ^nature^, the ^inner logic^, of money that inclines it to usurp the divine throne, to see precisely how the question concerning the ultimate end of action serves to distinguish the philospher from the sophist, and then to consider what a ^healthy^ love of money would be. As we will see, Plato's interpretation of the significance of money concerns not just teaching, but in fact all human activities.


2. The ontological meaning of money

( ... ... ) But the question of money has a different profile in Plato's philosophy. Moral question, for him, always turn out to be epistemological questions, which in turn are determined by ontological or metaphysical realities.[주]5  In Plato's understanding, the way one acts (virtue) is inevitably a function of what one takes to be real (knowledge), which depends on the various ways reality can present itself─and vice versa. Before we ask how money ought to be used, it is necessary to ask the more fundamental queston what it ^is^. We would suggest that what Plato contributes to the ancient moral tradition regarding money is to reveal that the question at stake here lies deeper than the attitudes of particular individuals: it is first a question of order, and thus a metaphysical question. To show this, we need to explore what Plato says about money within the context of his broader philosophy.

As the Greek thinkers generally affirmed, human beings are naturally social creatures, and, for Plato, money is one of the institutions that makes complex co-existence possible. When Plato has Socrates lay out the most basic social form theoretically conceivable, the initial sketch of the ideal city in ^Republic^ II, money makes an early appearance. There are several things that human beings need by nature, and people tend to differ naturally in their aptitude to provide for one or another of those needs. Rather than each person providing individually for all of his own need─which would eliminate the necessity of society altogether─each does what he does best, and exchange with the others. The manner of exchange, he says, is "buying and selling," and the means that enables the transaction is money, or he puts it here (371b), a [그리스 문자 표기 어휘], which Allan Bloom transaltes as "an established currency as a token for exchange," but which might be more directly rendered as a "conventional symbol for the sake of exchange."[주]6  The existence of this currency, plus the fact that those who produce what is bought and sold do not have the time to wait in the market for the demand for their wares, gives rise to a class of people who do not produce, but rather who work directly with money themselves: the tradesmen (if they buy and sell within their own city) and merchants (if they travel from city to city) (371c-d). According to Socrates, in a "rightly governed city," these will be people unable to produce normally because they are physically weak or useless. In addition to these people who work directly with money, there will be people of strong bodies but weak minds, and so unable to be either producers or tradesmen themselves, who sell their labor. Socrates calls this class of people the "wage-earners."

Now, Socrates refers to this simple social form─constituted mainly by producers, but secondarily by tradesmen and wage-earners─as the "true" city (372e), and appears to be satisfied with it, but Socrates's main dialogue partner in the ^Republic^, Glaucon, raises an objection. According to Glaucon, this city of "utmost necessity" is fit more for pigs than for human beings, that is, it represents a city for purely natural beings that lack the adornments of culture. Socrates is thus prompted to expand what he had initially sketched as the basic form of human community, and the expansion introduces ambiguities. If he calls the first the "true" city, the second is a "feverish" [그리스 문자 어휘] city, one that is inflamed precisely because it is no longer based on natural necessisites, but, as Socrates puts it, on luxuries, that is, on objects of non-necessary desire. ( ... ... ) Socrates observes that such a city will necessarily grow in sie, and lead to conflict with other cities, especially if they too "let themselves go to the unlimited acquisition of money" (372d).

There are two interesting things to note about this initial descrption: ( ... ... ) Now, whether the distinction between necessary and non-necessary desires is the ^same^ as that between good and bad desires is a question to which we will have to return.[주]7  In any event, Plato is suggesting that a city that lacks the internal order of nature will necessarily end up going to war precisely because it has no meaure. In an off-hand way, Socrates remarks that, with the distinction between necessary and non-necessary desie, we have in fact discovered "the origins of war."[주]8

The second thing to note is that Socrates appears, here, to sum up the whole of this order of life in a single phrase, namely, being handed over to "the unlimited acquisition of money." In other words, the love of money appears as the paradigm of a non-necessary and therefore boundless desire. This appearance gets substantialized toward the end of the ^Republic^ when Socrates proceeds to compare the pleasure enjoyed in different orders of life, that is, in lives founded on different objects of desire or kinds of love. There are three basic orders, ( ... ... ... ... )

Once we see that the love of money entails an inversion of means and ends, we can illuminate its significance by connecting it with one of the main recurrent themes in Plato's dialogues, namely, the theme of rhetoric. ( ... ... )

How does this problem illuminate Plato's view of the nature of money? Money is not wealth; it is the ^appearance^ of wealth. ( ... ... )

( ... ... ) We recall that, when Socrates introduced money in the ideal city, it was precisely as a token, as a "symbol" of exchange, and thus as something that has its reality in allowing the transition from one real good to another. When this means is elevated above the actual goods it is meant to enable, it becomes a pseudo-good, a thing in itself that now ^substitutes^ for real wealth.

( ... ... )

Moreover, we ought to now to consider that the same separation gives it a kind of pseudo-divinity, insofar as it makes money both universal and a-temporal. On the one hand, money is utterly indifferent, in itself, as to it use; it is a potential for anything, which is another way of saying that money is "omnipotent." Socrates suggests in book I of the ^Repubic^ that money, as generally understood, is not so much a particular good as it is something that transcends any particular activity and makes one willing to do it, i.e., makes that activity a kind of good, if only in an instrumental sense (more on this later).[주]18  In this respect, it is universal goodness in an abstract sense. On the other hand, its abstraction also makes it timeless in a certain respect. ( ... ... ... )

( ... ) In short, Socrates rejects the idea that money ought to be the "prime mover" of any human activity as a rule. The only good, in fact, that he permits in book I for the engagement in work, it seems, is the negative one, avoidance of punishment. ( ... ... )


출처 3: Anthony F. Natoli. "Socrates and Money: The Translation of Plato, Apology 30b2-4", Mnemosyne (2015) 1-27. 자료.


출처 4: http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/4320-Socrates-The-Nature-of-Money

※ 원출처가 의심스러운 온라인 게시물.
※ 발췌 (excerpt):

( ... ... )

Socrates:

My dear Amphytrion, banks do not initially need money to lend money. Xerces, borrowed from Babylon banks because he was short in gold coins. The money to build Persepolis was created through promissory notes. Everybody honoured these notes in the civilised world, from the Indian Kingdom of Magadha to the borders of Libya.

( ... ... )
Amphytrion:

This is quite a revelation, Master. But the banks in Babylon could not have created these notes without at least a deposit of gold.

Socrates:

Not quite so. Although an initial deposit and a capital would certainly help, what is crucial is the support of the King. Why would bankers hoard too much gold if nobody asks them for gold in exchange of notes? No rational trader would hoard too much gold. We know very well what happened to the gold hoarded in Egypt, which was robbed even in the most sacred places by invaders, including King Kambyses when he plundered Egypt.

Amphytrion:

But Master, do you mean to say that bankers are able to create money? How can this be?

Socrates:

My dear Amphytrion, money is but the shadow of credit. When the King decides to pay back his initial debt the credit notes are cancelled and money is destroyed. As soon as a new supply of sandalwood is needed, the banks issue new promissory notes at the request of the king, which guarantee that the holder of these notes could ask the banks for a payment in gold. I must stress that these notes are created as a result of a credit granted to the King.

( ... ... )


출처 5: 플라톤. <소크라테스의 변명> 황문수 옮김. 문예 1999. 구글도서

※ 발췌:

( ... ... ) 즉 '위대하고 강력하며 현명한 아테네 시민인 그대, 나의 벗이이여, 그대는 최대한의 돈과 명예와 명성을 쌓아 올리면서 지혜와 진리와 영혼은 최대로 향상하는 것을 거의 돌보지 않고 그러한 일은 전혀 고려하지도 주의하지도 않는 것이 부끄럽지 않은가?'라고 말입니다. ( ... ... ) 내가 돌아다니며 하는 일은 노인이든 청년이든 가리지 않고 여러분의 육신이나 재산을 생각하기에 앞서서 우선적으로 영혼의 최대의 향상을 고려해야 한다고 설득하는 것뿐이기 때문입니다. 나는 여러분에게 돈에서 덕이 생기는 것이 아니라, 공적이든 사적이든 간에 덕에서 돈과 다른 좋은 일 생긴다고 말하는 것입니다. 이것이 내 가르침이며, 만일 이러한 가르침이 청년을 타락시키는 이론이라면 나는 해로운 사람입니다. ( ... ... )


출처 6: 이현우. "소크라테스의 죽음에 숨은 이유", 시사인 2015년 4월 30일.

※ 발췌:

( ... ... ) 가라타니는 제자인 플라톤에 의해 소크라테스의 진의가 왜곡되었다고 보며, 소크라테스와 플라톤의 사상을 분리하고자 한다. 플라톤은 이오니아의 정신과 철학에 대한 비판을 '소크라테스'의 이름으로 수행했지만 ( ... ) 정작 소크라테스는 이오니아의 사상과 정치를 회복하려고 한 마지막 인물이었다는 게 가라타니의 핵심 주장이다.

이오니아란 소아시아 서부의 좁은 해안과 에게 해 동부의 섬들로 이루어진 지역을 가리키는 고대 지명으로 현재는 터키와 그리스의 일부다. 이오니아의 도시국가(폴리스) 시민들은 아테네와 그리스 본토에서 건너온 이민자들로 구성돼 있었는데, 이들은 ( ... ) 자신이 속할 도시를 자발적으로 선택했고, 도시는 이들 간의 사회계약을 통해 성립되었다. 그러면서 시민이 지배자와 피지배자로 분화되지 않은 '무지배' 형태가 탄생했는데, 이 무지배를 '이소노미아'라고 불렀다.

이소노미아는 구성원들의 실질적인 평등에 근거하는데, 이오니아에서 이 평등의 바탕은 시민들의 자유였다. 토지가 없는 자는 타인의 토지에서 일하는 대신 다른 도시로 이주했기에 대토지 소유나 부의 독점이 이루어지지 않았다. 말하자면 ‘자유’가 ‘평등’을 강제했다. 이와는 달리 그리스 본토에서는 화폐경제 발달이 심각한 부의 불균형과 계급 대립을 가져왔다. 이에 대한 대응으로 스파르타에서는 자유를 희생하는 대신에 교역을 폐지해 경제적 평등을 강화하고자 했다. 반면 아테네에서는 시장경제와 자유를 유지한 채 다수인 빈곤층이 소수의 부자로 하여금 부의 재분배를 강제하는 시스템을 만들었는데, 이것이 아테네의 데모크라시(민주정)이다. ( ... ... ) 소크라테스가 아테네 데모크라시에 위협으로 간주돼 사형을 선고받은 것은 그가 의식하지는 않았더라도 이오니아의 이소노미아를 아테네에 다시금 복원하려고 했기 때문이라는 게 가라타니의 재해석이다.

[발췌, 해설] 이시구로, The Remains of the Day

출처 1: Kazuo Ishiguro, The Remains of the Day. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2010. 구글도서

※ 발췌 (excerpt): pp. 172-173,

( ... ) I had half expected her to be angry at this inquiry, but on the contrary, it was almost as though she had been long awaiting an opportunity to raise the very topic. For she said in something of a relieved way:

'Oh, Mr Stevens, it's just someone I knew once when I was at Granchester Lodge. As a matter of fact, he was the butler there at the time, but now he's left service altogether and is employed by a business near by. He somehow learnt of my being here and started writing to me, suggesting we renew our acquaintance. And that, Mr Stevens, is really long and short of it.'

'I see, Miss Kenton. No doubt, it is refreshing to leave the house at times.'

'I find it so, Mr Stevens.'

There was a short silence. Then Miss Kenton appeared to make some decision and went on:

'This acquaintance of mine. I remember when he was butler at Granchester Lodge, he was full of the most marvellous ambitions. In fact, I imagine his ultimate dream would have been to become butler of a house like this one. Oh, but when I think now of some of his methods! Really, Mr Stevens, I can just imagine your face if you were to be confronted by them now. It really is no wonder his ambitions remained unfulfilled.'

I gave a small laugh. 'In my experience,' I said, 'too many people believe themselves capable of working at these higher levels without having the least idea of the exacting demands involved. It is certainly not suited to just anybody.'

'So true. Really, Mr Stevens, what would you have said if you had observed hem in those days!'

'At these sorts of levels, Miss Kenton, the profession isn't for everybody. It is easy enough to have lofty ambitions, but without certain qualities, a butler will simply not progress beyond a certain point.'

Miss Kenton seemed to ponder this for a moment, then said:

'It occurs to me you must be a well-contented man, Mr Steven. Here you are, after all, at the top of your profession, every aspect of your domain well under control. I really cannot imagine what more you might wish for in life.'

I could think of no immediate response to this. In the slightly awkward silence that ensued, Miss Kenton turned her gaze down into the depths of he cocoa cup as if she had become engrossed by something she had noticed there. In the end, after some consideration, I said:

'As far as I am concerned, Miss Kenton, my vocation will not be fulfilled until I have done all I can to see his lordship through the great tasks he has set himsel. The day his lordship's work is complete, the day ^he^ is able to rest on his laurels, content in the knowledge that he had sone all anyone could ever reasonably ask of him, only on that day, Miss Kenton, will I be able to call myself, as you put it, a well-contented man.'

She may have been a little puzzled by my words; or perhaps it was that they had for some reason depleased her. In any case, her mod seemed to change at that point, and our conversation rapidly lost the rather personal tone it had begun to adopt.

It was not so long afterwards that these meetings over cocoa in her parlour came to an end. In fact, I recall quite clearly the very last time we met like that; I was wishing to discuss with Miss Kenton a forthcoming event─a weekend gathering of a distinguished person from Scotland. It is true the event was still a month or so away, but then it had always been our habit to talk over such events from an early stage. On this particular evening, I had been discussing various aspects of it for a little while when I realized Miss Kenton was contributing very little; indeed, after a time, it became perfectly obvious her thoughts were somewhere else altogether. I did on a few occasions say things like: 'Are you with me, Miss Kenton?' particularly if I had been making a lengthy point, and though whenever I did so she would become a little more alert, within seconds I could see her attention drifting again. ( ... ... )


출처 2: 가즈오 이시구로, <남아 있는 나날> 송은경 옮김. 민음사 펴냄. 2009.7(2017.10. 2판 12쇄).

※ 발췌: 211~213쪽,

( ... ... ) 만에 하나 이런 징후들이 그레이엄 씨의 견해, 즉 켄턴 양이 결혼하기 위해 떠날 생각을 하고 있다는 것을 뒷받침하는 것이 사실이라면, 내게는 이 문제를 좀더 캐 보아야 할 의무가 분명 있었다. 그래서 어느 날 저역 우리의 코코아 모임 자리를 빌어 감히 물어보았다.

"그래, 이번 화요일에도 외출할 생각이오, 켄턴 양? 당신이 쉬는 날 말이오."

이렇게 물으면 화를 발칵 내지 않을까 예상했었는데 오히여 그녀는 이 이야기가 나오기만 학수고대했던 사람처럼, 참았던 것을 토해내듯 말하기 시작했다.

"아, 스티븐스 씨, 그분은 제가 그랜체스터 로지에 있을 때 알았던 사람일 뿐이에요. 당시에는 그 집 집사로 있었지만 지금은 이 직업을 떠나 이 근처의 어느 업체에 근무하고 계시죠. 제가 여기에 있다는 걸 어떻게 알아내고는 편지를 보내오기 시작했는데, 다시 교제해 보자는 식의 내용이었죠. 더도 덜도 보태지 않고 그게 전부예요, 스티븐스 씨."

"그렇군요, 켄턴 양. 이따금 집에서 나가 보는 것도 기분 전환에 좋지요."

"그건 그래요, 스티븐스 씨."

짧은 침묵이 흘렀다. 이윽고 켄턴 양이 뭔가 결심한 듯한 표정으로 말을 이었다.

"방금 말씀드린 제 지인 말인데요. 제 기억으로는 그는 그랜체스터 로지의 집사로 있을 당시 아주 거창한 야심에 차 있었어요. ( ... ... ) 그의 야망이 실현되지 못한 건 지극히 당연해요."

나는 가볍게 웃고 나서 말했다.

"내 경험으로 볼 때도, 이런 높은 수준에 어떤 것들이 요구되는지 정확히 알지도 못하면서 자신의 업무 능력을 과신하는 사람들이 넘 많아요. 어런 일은겨로 아무나 할 수 있는 게 아니죠."

"그렇고말고요. 궁금하기 짝이 없어요, 스티븐스 씨. 만약 당신이 그 당시의 그를 지켜보았다면 과연 뭐라고 하셨을까!"

"켄턴 양, 이런 수준의 전문성은 아무나 감당할 수 있는 게 아닙니다. 높은 야망을 품는 건 어려운 일이 아니지만 확실한 자질을 갖추지 못한다면 집사로서 일정 수준 이상 발전하기는 힘들죠."

켄턴 양은 이 말을 잠시 되씹는 듯하더니 말했다.

"스티븐스 씨, 당신은 정말 스스로 만족할 만한 위치라는 생각이 들어요. 보시다시피 자신의 업에서 최고의 자리에 오르셨고, 자기 분야의 모든 측면들을 속속들이 잘 관리하고 계시니 말입니다. 인생에서 더 이상 바랄 게 뭐가 있을까 싶을 정도예요."

( ... ... ) 이윽고 내가 잠시 생각해 본 뒤 말했다.

"나로 말하자면 켄턴 양, 내가 최선을 다해 노력하여 나리께서 스스로 짊어지신 저 숭고한 과업들이 마무리되는 것을 볼 때까지는 결코 사명을 다했노라고 할 수 없어요. 나리의 과업이 완결되는 날, '그분'께서 합당한 모든 요청에 부응했노라고 흐뭇하게 자부하시며 명예의 월계관을 누리시게 되는 날, 그날에야 비로소 나도 방금 당신이 말한 바와 같은 만족을 느낄 수 있을 거요."

그녀가 내 말에 좀 어리둥절했는지 모른다. 혹은 내 이야기가 어떤 이유로 그녀를 불쾌하게 만들었을 수도 있다. 어쨌거나 그 순간부터 그녀의 기분이 돌변한 듯 보였고, 다소 친밀한 분위기를 타던 우리의 대화도 급격히 분위기가 바뀌었다.

( ... ... )


출처 3: "Passion and Moral Blindness in The Remains of the Day", Chapter 4 in  Anthony Cunningham, The Heart of What Matters: The Role for Literature in Moral Philosophy, University of California Press, 2001. 구글도서

※ 발췌 (excerpt): pp. 95~ ,

Kazuo Ishiguro's ^The Remains of the Day^ is a tragedy, and like any good tragedy, the story invites our interest and sympathy. Knowing how thing can go wrong is crucial for getting things right, and since most of us know only too well how easily things can go awry, we naturally feel for unfortunate sould. Ishiguro's James Stevens, the consummate English butler, is fascinating because he is done by something other than simple ignorance, poor choices, or bad luck. Ultimately, he is compromised by a carefully sustained ideology that echoes longstanding themes in the Western philosophical tradition. Foremost here is Stevens's steadfast conviction that sound judgment and fidelity to what really matters require detachment from the passions.[주]1  In his flight from passion, he unwittingly nurtures a form of moral myopia, an impoverishing moral blindness. By the time Stevens realizes his plight, it is too late to right most of his errant ways. Howver, we've much to learn about moral vision and both the powers and limits of introspection by attending to Stevens's life and character.


I. THE STORY

Perhaps the first thing to note about ^Remains^ is that the tale is an introspective narrative spun by the novel's main character. Thus, bereft of any omniscient narrator in this travel diary, we have good reasons to be duly skeptical. Few of us can entirely escape the temptation to interpret the past selectively in our favor, and even the most detached observer can never see the whole landscape. Nevertheless, there is ample evidence that Stevens works hard to see things clearly, even if he is sometimes slow to draw the conclusions that we cannot avoid. He plods along methodically in his reflections, at times correcting mistaken recollections ( ... ... ) In short, Stevens engagesin nothing less than a Socratic effort to know himself, even if he does not begin with this goal in mind.

( ... ... )

Stevens's unparalleled fidelity to his craft and lord is guided by his commitment to "dignity." Throughout the novel, Stevens struggles to refine a vision of this ideal. His articulation emerges out of two anecdotes about his fater, William Stevens. ( ... ) The common denominator to both stories is William's ability to silence this emotions in the service of professional ends. For James Stevens, emotions are potential threats to the equanimity that are utterly essential to a great butler. ( ... ... )

( ... ... )

As we shall see, Stevens's struggle to embody something like the Stoic ideals of ^ataraxis^ (freedom from emotional disturbance) and ^apartheia^ (passionless detachment) is his ultimate undoing.

Stevens has ample reason to think that he lives true to his ideal of dignity and deserves a place in the pantheon of great English butlers. Darlington's internationl conference in 1923 stands out as a watershed event in his professional development. William Stevens, who has come to work at Darlington Hall in his twilight years, takes ill in the midst of the conference, and Stevens refuses to abandon his duties to remain by his dying father. Instead, he attends to the smooth running of the conference. Miss Kenton, Darlington Hall's housekeeper, offers to attend to Stevens's father and Stevens explains, " 'Miss Kenton, please don't think me unduly improper in not ascending to see my father in his deceased condition just at this moment. You see, I know my father would have wished me to carry on just now. ... To do otherwise, I feel would be let him down' " (^Remains^, 110).  When Stevens recalls this experience early in the novel, he does so with a "large sense of triumph."

Stevens's sense of triumph does not survive the novel. The most obvious factor in his altered self-understanding is the benefit of hindsight. Time demonstrates that Darlington was an unwitting pawn in the Nazi scheme to keep the British at bay while they prepared for conquest. And since a butler's success depends partly upon the moral worth of his house ( ... ... ), Stevens can hardly preserve the same self-assessment. Slowly but surely Stevens backs away from Darlington's defense. At two points he denies having known Darlington, though he tries later to rationalize his denials as something else. By the end of the novel, the best that he can muster is "Lord Darlington wasn't a bad man. He wasn't a bad man at all" (243). This is hardly high praise for his lord, and in a crucial sense as his lord goes, so goes Stevens.

( ... ... )

Finally, there is Stevens's growing awareness, however dim at first, of another path he might have chosen, a different kind of life with Miss Kenton. Stevens's odyssey is really a struggle to appreciate and admit how he squandered his life by forsaking love. By the end of his journey, faced by Kenton for the last time and by the full realization of his mistake for the first time, he finally admits that, "at the moment my heart was breaking"(^Remains^, 239).  ( ... ... )

( ... ... )

Nevertheless, despite Stevens's shield of "professionalism," Kenton perseveres in their relationship and even engages in some good-natured flirtation with Stevens. Stevens himself acknowledges the naughtiness of their playful conversation by stressing that "we would never have carried on in such a vein within the hearing of staff members" (^Remains^, 156). ( ... ... )

( ... ... ) When Stevens addresses the issue with Kenton out of a professional "responsibility to probe the matter further," Kenton informs him "in something of a relieved way" ("it was almost as though she had been long awaiting an opportunity to raise the very topic") that her "acquaintance" is a former butler who once enjoyed aspirations to reach Stevens's professional level but simply hadn't the right stuff (^Remains^, 171-172). And then a crucual interchange follows:

"It occurs to me you must be a well-contented man, Mr Steven. Here you are, after all, at the top of your profession, every aspect of your domain well under control. I really cannot imagine what more you might wish for in life."

I could think of no immediate response to this. In the slightly awkward silence that ensued, Miss Kenton turned her gaze down into the depths of he cocoa cup as if she had become engrossed by something she had noticed there. In the end, after some consideration, I said:

"As far as I am concerned, Miss Kenton, my vocation will not be fulfilled until I have done all I can to see his lordship through the great tasks he has set himsel. The day his lordship's work is complete, the day ^he^ is able to rest on his laurels, content in the knowledge that he had sone all anyone could ever reasonably ask of him, only on that day, Miss Kenton, will I be able to call myself, as you put it, a well-contented man."

She may have been a little puzzled by my words; or perhaps it was that they had for some reason depleased her. In any case, her mod seemed to change at that point, and our conversation rapidly lost the rather personal tone it had begun to adopt.

The blow strikes home. Like Alcibiades desperately searching for some sign that Socrates might have some interest in earthly love, in ^his^ charms and pleasures, Kenton goes fishing and catches a speech about all-consuming professional duty, the very last thing she hoped to hook.

( ... ... ) When she returns and informs him that she had accepted the offer, he extends perfunctory congratuations as he hurries upstairs where "matters of global significance [are] taking place" (^Remains^, 219). And when she later tries to apologize for trying to hurt him back by describing how she and her suitor enjoy laughs at his expense, Stevens utters what may be the most revealing confession in the novel: " '^I have not taken anything you have said to heart, Miss Kenton.^ In fact, I cannot recall what it is you might be referring to. Events of great importance are unfolding upstairs and I can hardly stop to exchange pleasantries with you' " (226; emphasis added).  And so, Kenton leaves Darlington Hall and life goes on for Stevens. Only during the course of his journey, indeed, only with his final meeting with Kenton does the true natue of his quest become clearer to him. ( ... ... )


II. SALVAGING THE REMAINS ( ... ... )


III. THE BIGGER PICTURE ( ... ... )


출처 1: ※ 발췌 (except), pp. 242~ ,

( ... ... ) The man turned his gaze back to the sea again, took a deep breath and sighed contentedly. We then proceeded to sit there together quietly for several moments.

'The fact is, of course,' I said after a while, 'I gave my best to Lord Darlington. I gave him the very best I had to give, and now─well─I find I do not have a great deal more left to give.'

The man said nothing, but nodded, so I went on:

'Since my new employer Mr Farraday arrived, I've tried very hard, very hard indeed, to provide the sort of service I would like him to have. I've tried and tried, but whatever I do I find I am far from reaching the standards I once set myself. More and more errors are appearing in my work. Quite trivial in themselves─at least so far. But they're of the sort I would never have made before, and I know what they signify. Goodness knows, I've tried and tried, but it's no use. I've given what I had to give. I gave it all to Lord Darlington.'

'Oh dear, mate. Here, you want a hankle? I've got one somewhere. Here we are. It's fairly clean. Just blew my nose once this morning, that's all. Have a go, mate.'

'Oh dear, no, thank you, it's quite all right. I'm very sorry, I'm afraid the travelling has tired me. I'm very sorry.'

'You must have been very attached to this Lord whatever. And it's three years since he passed away, you say? I can see you were very attached to him, mate.'

'Lord Darlington wasn't a bad man. He wasn't a bad man at all. And at least he had the privilege of being able to say at the end of his life that he made his own mistakes. His lordship was a courgageous man. He chose a certain path in life, it proved to be a misguided one, but there, he chose it, he can say that at least. As for myself, I cannot even claim that. You see, I trusted. I trusted in his lordship's wisdom. All those years I served him, I trusted I was doing something worthwhile. I can't even say I made my own mistakes. Really─one has to ask oneself─what dignity is there in that?'

'Now, look, mate, I'm not sure I follow everything you're saying. But if you ask me, your attitude's all wrong, see? Don't keep looking back all the time, you're bound to get depressed. And all right, you can't do your job as well as you used to. But it's the same for all of us, see? We've all got to put our feet up at some point. Look at me. Been happy as a lark since the day I retired. All right, so neither of us are exactly in our first flush of youth, but you've got to keep looking forward.' And I believe it was then that he said: 'You've got to enjoy yourself. The evening's the best part of the day. You've done your day's work. Now you can put your feet up and enjoy it. That's how I look at it. Ask anybody, they'll all tell you. The evening's the best part of the day.'


출처 2: ※ 발췌, 298~300쪽

( ... ... ) 노인은 다시 바다로 시선을 돌리더니 숨을 깊이 들이켜 흡족하게 한숨을 내쉬었다. 그리고 얼마간 우리는 말없이 나란히 앉아 있었다.

내가 먼저 입을 열었다.

"사실 나는, 달링턴 경께 모든 걸 바쳤습니다. 내가 드려야 했던 최고의 것을 그분께 드렸지요. 그러고 나니 이제 나란 사람은 줄 것도 별로 남지 않았구나 싶답니다."

노인은 아무 말 없이 고개만 끄덕였으므로 나는 계속 말했다.

"새 주인인 패러데이 어르신께서 도착하신 후로 내 나름대로 정말 열심히, 무던히도 애써 왔습닏. 그분께서 받아 마땅하다고 생각되는 수준으로 봉사를 하려고 말입니다. 그런데 노력하고 노력했지만 무슨 일을 하든 지난날 내가 설정했던 기준들에 한참 미달해 있는 나 자신을 발견하게 됩니다. 나의 직업에서 점점 더 많은 실수들이 나타나고 있어요. 지극히 사소한 것들이죠. 적어도 지금까지는 말입니다. 그러나 예전 같았으면 결코 저지르지 않았을 실수들이에요. 그게 무엇을 의미하는지 저는 잘 압니다. 나는 맹세코 노력하고 노력했지만 아무 소용이 없어요. 나는 주어야 했던 것을 줘 버렸습니다. 달링턴 나리께 모두 줘 버렸지요."

"저런, 형씨. 손수건이 필요해요? 내가 어디 넣어 가지고 왔는데, 아, 여기 있군. 아주 깨끗한 거라오. 아침에 내가 코만 한 번 풀었어요. 이걸 써요, 형씨."

"아니, 괜찮아요. 고맙지만 됐습니다. 미안합니다. 여행을 하다 보니 좀 지쳤나 봅니다. 정말 미안하게 됐어요."

"그 나리인가 뭔가 하는 양반한테 애착이 컸던 것 같군요. 돌아가신 지 3년째라고 했죠? 내가 볼 때 그 양반한테 너무 집착했어요, 형씨."

"달링턴 나리는 나쁜 분이 아니셨어요. 전혀 그런 분이 아니었습니다. 그리고 그분에게는 생을 마감하면서 당신께서 실수했다고 말씀하실 수 있는 특권이라도 있었지요. 나리는 용기 있는 분이셨어요. 인생에서 어떤 길을 택하셨고 그것이 잘못된 길로 판명되긴 했지만 최소한 그 길을 택했노라는 말씀을 하실 수 있습니다. 나로 말하자면 그런 말조차 할 수가 없어요, 알겠습니까? 나는 '믿었어요.' 나리의 지혜를. 그 긴 세월 그분을 모셔 오면서 내가 뭔가 가치 있는 일을 하고 있다고 믿었지요. 나는 실수를 저질렀다는 말조차 할 수 없습니다. 여기에 정녕 무슨 품위가 있단 말인가 하고 나는 자문하지 않을 수 없어요."

"이봐요, 형씨. 내가 당시늬 이야기를 제대로 이해한 건지 어떤지는 모르겠소만, 만약 나한테 묻는다면 이런 태도는 정말 잘못되었다고 말하고 싶어요, 알겠어요? 만날 그렇게 뒤만 돌아보아선 안 됩니다.