{Religion and Science}[20th February 1970]

[Redbook1:125][19700220:2357b]{Religion and Science}[20th February 1970]

Friday 20th February 1970, 11.57 p.m.

& Saturday 21st February 1970, from 12 midnight. [continued]

            "Why should this have happened to me?" -- a personal, emotional prayer to the God of Providence and Fate.

            "Why should it have been me that this happened to?" -- a personal, scientifically orientated prayer to the God of Statistics, Averages, and Chance.

[PostedBlogger31122012]

{Ridicule}[20th February 1970]

[Redbook1:125][19700220:2357]{Ridicule}[20th February 1970]

Friday 20th February 1970, 11.57 p.m.

& Saturday 21st February 1970, from 12 midnight.

            Ridicule is the use of the short term to destroy the long term; it is the exposure of method to conceal purpose, the utilisation of the totally irrelevant to make the vital appear futile.  It is always misleading and dishonest, and I renounce it utterly.

            (The massed bands will now play 'Land of Hope and Glory')

(&cf p128!)

(&202)

[PostedBlogger30122012]

{Cor!}[18th February 1970]

[Redbook1:125][19700218:0010c]{Cor!}[18th February 1970]

Wednesday 18th February 1970, 12.10 a.m. [continued]

            I feel within me a surge of anger that boils and seethes and, repressed, dies down to [a] sullen, mutinous rumble which will one day burst all bounds and carry all before it in the shock of domestic realisation.

            [PostedBlogger29122012]

{National Maturity}[18th February 1970]

[Redbook1:124-125][19700218:0010b]{National Maturity}[18th February 1970]

Wednesday 18th February 1970, 12.10 a.m. [continued]

            Introduce a time factor into the U.N. plan above* -- e.g. any political coup d’etat which has lasted more than e.g. a year without the U.N. moving must count as permanent (even tyrannies?).

            We must realise that a country can be not ready for democracy.

*[ref. pp119-122]

[PostedBlogger28122012]

{The Spark on the Edge of the Twilight}[18th February 1970]

[Redbook1:124][19700218:0010a]{The Spark on the Edge of the Twilight}[18th February 1970]

Wednesday 18th February 1970, 12.10 a.m. [continued]

            There is a restless, questing spark of nervous energy that drives twentieth-century Man from strength to strength, skirting the very edge of the Twilight.

[PostedBlogger27122012]

{The White Man’s Burden}[18th February 1970]

[Redbook1:124][19700218:0010]{The White Man’s Burden}[18th February 1970]

Wednesday 18th February 1970, 12.10 a.m.

            Even if the Europeans were inherently superior to other kinds of men, that would still give them no right to dominate those races -- rather, it would involve a duty to assist such peoples.  The problem is, where does the one end and the other begin?  Assistance may benefit from domination.

            Personally I think that there is no excuse for domination if such domination is resented.  But do not forget that the emerging states of today, dominating the tribes within their boundaries, are the products of the imperial domination of yesterday.

[PostedBlogger26122012]

{Youth}[12th February 1970]

[Redbook1:124][19700212:1135a]{Youth}[12th February 1970]

Thursday 12th February 1970 11.35 a.m. [continued]

            A collection of teenagers together is a gang of yobs, a collection of juvenile delinquents, rods, mockers, Hell’s Angels, queer-bashers, youth, a student problem, and a Threat to Law and Order and Our Society.  One member of such a group by himself is a nice kid, a normal teenager, the boy next door who would never do anything like that, and part of that quiet, thoughtful, hard-working majority who are the citizens of tomorrow's Britain and look what sort of a mess we’ve left them.

[PostedBlogger26for25122012]

{Man and Machine}[12th February 1970]

[Redbook1:123][19700212:1135]{Man and Machine}[12th February 1970]

Thursday 12th February 1970 11.35 a.m.

            They do say that machines are becoming more and more like men.

            Take Victoria Line trains, which calculate how far away from the train in front they are and operate accordingly.  They receive and process information, and act on it.  But in fact, their degree of choice is no greater than is that of the machinery in an old train; it is just that the scope of the choice is wider, and the information more complicated.  They have in no sense any freedom of choice.  Their power might be compared to our reflex actions, where, if everything functions properly, the result of information is not in doubt.

            In fact, the more we live by reflex or instinctive reaction -- the more we program ourselves consciously or sub-consciously to react to certain stimuli without rational thought, through habit -- the less human we become.  In certain circumstances it may do more good to oneself in the long run to think and make the wrong decision than to react blindly the right way.

[PostedBlogger24122012]

{The Classless Society}[11th February 1970]

[Redbook1:123][19700211:2115a]{The Classless Society}[11th February 1970]

Wednesday 11th February 1970  9.15 p.m. [continued]

            The only really classless society is naturist Trappism based on constant movement by the population.

[PostedBlogger23122012]

{Religion, Socialism and Science}[11th February 1970]

[Redbook1:123][19700211:2115]{Religion, Socialism and Science}[11th February 1970]

Wednesday 11th February 1970  9.15 p.m.

            The difference between religious philosophy, socialist philosophy, and scientific philosophy is that while the first asks "Why are we all here?”, the second asks “Why am I here?”, and the third asks “Who are we all where?”

[PostedBlogger22122012]

{The U.N. and Palestine}[7th February 1970]

[Redbook1:119-122][19700207:1100b]{The U.N. and Palestine}[7th February 1970]

Saturday 7th February 1970  11 a.m. [continued]

            I should like to see the Suez Canal and its Zone taken over by the United Nations, and defended by them, for ever.

            Sinai, I think, rightfully belongs to Egypt, and should be returned to her; but one understands the Israelis’ point of view.  The Canal and the Gulf of Suez are much easier to defend.

            The possibility of a second U.N. Canal, or even two, should be looked into; one from Eilat straight across to the coast somewhere between El Ahrish and Gaza (a fairly mountainous route), the other down to the Dead Sea and up the Jordan, leaving it just south of the Sea of Galilee and cutting up the valley to Cape Carmel.  A third possible route would go north from Eilat and Aquaba until just south of the Dead Sea, then turn west for a shorter route over the less high ground to Gaza.

            These would at least offer alternative routes during crisis; but if the U.N. were to guard the Canal, these should not be necessary.

            N.B. possibly also from Red Sea to Nile (11/2/70).

[PostedBlogger21122012]

{The United Nations [continued]}[7th February 1970]

[Redbook1:119-122][19700207:1100a]{The United Nations [continued]}[7th February 1970]

Saturday 7th February 1970  11 a.m. [continued]

            Similarly, the idea of votes according to population in the Assembly could penalise countries which introduce birth control as against countries which allow unlimited breeding on U.N. aid.  One could get the committee [sic] to award crude bonuses in voting power based on estimates of what the population would have been (ratified by [the] Intermediate Court) if birth control had not been encouraged, and similarly one might penalise overpopulated countries to the extent of the percentage of the population who would not have lived, without U.N. (and other) grant aid, or to the extent of those who would not have been born if [a] U.N. plan for birth control had been accepted -- a " double " penalty.  But these calculations are difficult and would eventually become absurd, if not impossible; and they are in some sense a negation of democracy.

            One could base voting power on one or more of these factors plus an estimate of economic power and significance, similarly calculated.  An estimate of military power should not be used, since that would encourage armament, just as conventional democracy might encourage breeding.

            A good figure might be arrived at using an equation which contrasts economic wealth with population giving a figure which is directly proportional to wealth per head -- and somewhere near average standard of living.  However, this would result in tiny countries having the same vote as large ones -- pointless.  Perhaps the equation should provide for waiting to be based on either total population (as allowed for above) or total wealth -- whichever is bigger.  One could incorporate a sliding scale of wealth against allowed "population" which retained wealthy countries their lead while encouraging a low population and a high standard of living.

            Perhaps (Wealth / Population (i.e. wealth per head)) + (Wealth + Population/2 (or whatever figure is thought “appropriate”)).  A common standard of wealth=population would, of course, have to be found, based, perhaps, on a reasonable standard of wealth per head.

            I'm not sure whether this would work or not.  The idea of this (or something like it) is based on the need to encourage nations to build up their wealth per head and total wealth and yet retain some semblance of democracy -- but without making population rather than standard of living an advantage.  Obviously the calculations are complex, but there must be one equation for all countries.  Collection of statistics will also be difficult; nor is it possible to ensure that (Wealth / Population) reflects standard of living at all easily -- it could all be spent on internal security.

[PostedBlogger20122012]

{The United Nations}[7th February 1970]

[Redbook1:119-122][19700207:1100]{The United Nations}[7th February 1970]

Saturday 7th February 1970  11 a.m.

            I would like the United Nations strengthened so that it could interfere in situations like the Middle East.  However, there would have to be safeguards to prevent abuse of this strength.  On the other hand, the safeguards must be speedy -- not delaying.

            The Security Council as it exists now should be increased by adding China and (possibly) Japan.  West Germany could be considered also; but China is very important.

            A new intermediate council or court should be formed consisting of the Security Council (including, of course, the so-called " Big Four”), the three possible members above, and a member from: Africa, South America, Australasia, Canada, India, W.Europe, Eastern Europe?,  South East Asia, the Arab states, and similar groupings -- possibly with a member for all the tiny states not otherwise represented.

            The Assembly proper would remain basically as it is, but states would have voting power according to a U.N. estimate of their approximate population.  The Intermediate Court would have one vote per representative, but the grouping would tend to reflect economic, and hence political, power.  The Security Council would still operate on one vote per country.

            The Intermediate Council [sic] would have the duty of deciding when a situation was worthy of U.N. interference.  Its positive decisions would only be effective with a 75% majority.  It would sit fairly permanently, and it could hear evidence like any normal court.  It would also arbitrate after U.N. action.

            Once the Intermediate Court had decided that a situation was a crisis, the General Assembly would vote on whether to interfere or not.  The voting would be by population, as outlined above (but see below); again, a large (say 75%) majority would be needed for positive change of action (i.e. from doing nothing to doing something).

            The decision would then have to be ratified by all members of the Security Council; and if they can all agree, then the situation must be really desperate.

            The U.N. forces would then break up the crisis and halt everything until the Intermediate Court had arbitrated.  They would then enforce the arbitration (with the Security Council's full agreement?) if it was not kept to.  This procedure is fairly simple for external matters e.g. wars; for internal matters, e.g. coups d’etat, the situation is more tricky.  One would like to see the U.N. establish a democracy wherever a coup d’etat occurs; however, this is unlikely to be agreed to by many countries, including members of the Security Council.  An unsuccessful coup d’etat resulting in prolonged civil war warrants interference, under the above conditions; but there is very little one can do about a successful one, unless democracy becomes much more fashionable.

[PostedBlogger19122012]

{Argument and Conviction [continued]}[3rd February 1970]

[Redbook1:117-118][19700203:2330]{Argument and Conviction [continued]}[3rd February 1970]

Tuesday 3rd February 1970  11.30 pm

            I am rather worried about D, and also about my attitude towards him.  He seems to have found a peculiar knack of using both possibilities or sides of an argument as arguments in his favour.  I think it was George Orwell -- or was it E.M Forster? -- who gave the classic example of this: the tradesman who says that these are the best apples to be had and how can I expect the best apples at this price?  I lent D Ruthless Rhymes and More Ruthless Rhymes last night, thinking he would be amused.  Tonight I collected them and asked his opinion.  Not much, he said; one was a classic -- the one about the day the Germans landed -- and one other he had heard before, but they were generally pretty sub-standard.

            What staggers me is the way he makes both statements sound like insults!  It is bad that one should be a classic and one he should have heard before; and it is bad that the rest are sub-standard.  The two statements are practically mutually opposed; if he sneers at one, he cannot, logically, sneer at the other!

            But he does.

            Or am I imagining all this?  I wish I was; but it is always happening.  I am not going to become full of self-pity; my life is not nearly as bad, objectively, as, for example, Kipling's early childhood.  But he seems to satisfy something in himself by getting at me; and I find the process carries on, so I in turn get at other people, like S for instance, needlessly.  That is what is most awful; I can stop it, and I will, but other horrible remarks slip out before I realise fully what I am doing to people.

            'It's not what they say; it's the way they say it.’

            There are times when M says things at which I quite irrationally want to shout.  It's all subjective; what is really happening -- which means what? -- bears little relation to what one sees, in this field.

            I think it is time I was up and away.

[PostedBlogger18122012]

{Argument and Conviction}[1st February 1970]

[Redbook1:117][19700201:2030]{Argument and Conviction}[1st February 1970]

Sunday 1st February 1970  8.30 pm

            To argue effectively, one has not only to win the argument but also to convince the other side.  In order to do that one must defeat not just the arguments he puts forward but also the real arguments which are the true reason for his position, and which he either does not know or cannot understand -- including those based on prejudice, which are most difficult of all to disprove because they have no rational basis.  So, to convince him, one must know his case better than he himself knows it -- and yet, on the other hand, avoid pushing him so far and hard that he can cling to his own imagined stupidity as an excuse for retaining beliefs he knows he does not fully understand.

[PostedBlogger17122012]

{Freedom and Responsibility}[20th January 1970]

[Redbook1:116][19700120:1605b]{Freedom and Responsibility}[20th January 1970]

Tuesday 20th January 1970  4.05 p.m. [continued]

            [....]

           

Alright, so we’ve been liberal; we've given you the permissive society; now you do your bit by making it work, by proving that permissiveness is not decadence, that material success can go hand in hand with sexual and personal freedom.

[PostedBlogger16122012]

{Hollow Arguments}[20th January 1970]

[Redbook1:116][19700120:1605a]{Hollow Arguments}[20th January 1970]

Tuesday 20th January 1970  4.05 p.m. [continued]

            Victory in argument does not win the reality; mastery of the art of communication brings no proficiency in its subject.

[PostedBlogger15122012]

{The Cluster}[20th January 1970]

[Redbook1:114-116][19700120:1605]{The Cluster}[20th January 1970]

Tuesday 20th January 1970  4.05 p.m.

            Today, in Pimlico, I saw a [...] woman beat her little child for falling down.  She had lost her temper.  I do not doubt that the provocation was great, and that the child’s running ahead and falling down was the last straw; but when the child stood up it turned round to look at its approaching mother and wailed.  At first I thought it cried for the pain and indignity of falling over -- a minor thing -- but now I wonder if it did not realise what was coming to it.  For fully three minutes she chastised it and scolded it, while it wailed, and we watched.

            I wonder how often that happens to that child; and I wonder too what will happen to it.  Will it grow up delinquent, and fall to violence, killing and hurting to revenge itself on society for the ills its parents did it?  Or in imitation of their ways?  For children imitate their parents and resent them at one and the same moment. 

            I should like to see flats and maisonettes built to look inwards in groups of, say, between six and twelve families -- probably eight to ten is the best size.  Houses should also be built round a central courtyard with a covered cloister joining them.

            The advantages of this are that statistically, there would be more chance of finding two good parents among eighteen or twenty than among two -- as it were.  Parents would not have to suffer their own offspring continually, babysitters would always be available, and, since other people's children are just as interesting to parents as other people's parents are to children, many of the strains of family life from the children's point of view would be relieved.

            If the community was bigger, it would take teenage gangs into its fold -- there won't be enough teenagers in one community to allow that with ten-family units, probably -- but it would lose something of its essential closed nature.  If it was smaller it would be too intimate and people would get on each other's nerves.

            That is the chief danger, of course -- that the lack of privacy will be resented.  I think that, for the sake of the children, we shall have to redefine our standards of privacy and allow a certain amount of meddling by the community -- as opposed to the State -- in the affairs of individuals.  I should like to see the communities populated on a cross-class, cross-wealth basis, but I am afraid that like tends to gather towards like too much to allow that to happen naturally.  I don't think one should force these things.  To provide for common facilities for e.g. sports and leisure, the small, ten-to-twenty-family groups could be part of a large collection of such groups.

            Private schemes could have common ownership of houses (?) by a community trust which leases the freehold to an individual with first option to the trust if he leaves.  So he has all the rights of an owner-dweller but the community of ten/twenty families retains ultimate control.

            In this way also the day-to-day interests of old people would be cared for to a certain extent.

            I think now that fifteen would be closer to the optimum number of families, with twenty as a maximum.  This will have to be worked out by trial and error to a certain extent.

            For a start, houses in London which have back gardens could have their gardens turned into a central garden and playground.  There would be no way in, other than through the houses, so responsibility for the gardens would remain with the householders i.e. if someone broke into a house from the back he would have to got in through someone else's house.

            Incidentally, the local authority could help solve the parking problem by building car parks underneath.

[PostedBlogger14122012]

{Memory and Ambition}[18th January 1970]

[Redbook1:113][19700118:1315]{Memory and Ambition}[18th January 1970]

Sunday 18th January 1969 [sic;=1970], 1.15 p.m.

            Man constantly stretched by the pinpricks of future ambition and the tentacles of past memory.

            The interest of the future may go to those nations which led the arms race, but its accolades will be bestowed on those that pioneered the race for peace.

[PostedBlogger13122012]

{U.S. Aerospace}[17th January 1970]

[Redbook1:113][19700117:1145]{U.S. Aerospace}[17th January 1970]

Saturday 17th January 1970, 11.45 a.m.

            The Starfighter keeps crashing, all F-111s are grounded; the Boeing 747 is having trouble with engine casing and minor details; and now all the C-5 Galaxies are grounded because one has a crack in its wing.  Why is this?  Is the U.S. Aerospace industry less capable than ours?

            Perhaps it is rather that the best brains and organisational talent are being used for space (e.g. Apollo flights) leaving only second-rate men for aeroplane work.

            Should we expect another Wall St. crash shortly?

            The Russian economy is also in difficulties.

[PostedBlogger12122012]

{Social and Intelligent Class}[16th January 1970]

[Redbook1:112][19700116:0900]{Social and Intelligent Class}[16th January 1970]

Friday 16th January 1970, 9.a.m.

            The old system of class division in our society -- by social birth -- is being replaced by another, a division by intellectual birth.  In other words, where there used to be a structure with all levels of intelligence found (to a certain extent) at all social levels of society, there will now come a society in which the intelligent are at the top and the lower levels are composed of semi-morons and morons.  Could this lead to a new and terrible kind of class war, a revolt of the violent and reactive unintellectual majority, led by a few intelligent defectors from the leaders, against the domination of the intellectual, progressive or changing (or at least authoritarian) minority?

            The country earl has more in common with his gamekeeper or one of his beaters (in his shoot) than many a brilliant left-wing civil servant does with the unacademic clerks in his own office -- and what is more, both the earl and the gamekeeper know they have, while the clerk knows the civil servant hasn't.

[PostedBlogger11122012]

{Preparatory School}[15th January 1970]

[Redbook1:111][19700115:0000c]{Preparatory School}[15th January 1970]

Thursday 15th January 1970 [continued]

            I think the WRs [headmaster of my previous school, and his wife] may have resented that long letter I wrote to them in December.  It was a bit patronising, but I was sincere.  Sincerity is not all!

            They are very well-meaning people and I am very fond of all of them, but with the best intentions in the world they have conspired to make that school a hell on earth for sensitive introverts.  But I still think it is one of the best prep schools.

[PostedBlogger10122012]

{Malleability of Man}[15th January 1970]

[Redbook1:111][19700115:0000b]{Malleability of Man}[15th January 1970]

Thursday 15th January 1970 [continued]

            It is not so much that man is naturally good or inherently evil, but rather that he is utterly malleable, taking his whole life span as one point, to the various influences for good or evil -- in human terms -- surrounding him; and these are mostly of human origin now.  They can be anything from conscious action of his contemporaries through unintentional family pressures to an inherited physiological malfunction of the liver!

[PostedBlogger09122012]

{Childish Intuition}[15th January 1970]

[Redbook1:111][19700115:0000]{Childish Intuition}[15th January 1970]

Thursday 15th January 1970

            Supposing we found that child scientists were more creative than older ones, inventing by intuition what the adults missed by analysis?

[PostedBlogger08122012]

{American English}[12th January 1970]

[Redbook1:111][19700112:1015]{American English}[12th January 1970]

Monday 12th January 1970                10.15a.m.       

            The wonderful thing about the basic American accent* as heard by the Englishman* is that anything said in it seems either immensely funny or terribly tragic.

*{of a particular type?}

[PostedBlogger07122012]

{Parents}[2nd January 1970]

[Redbook1:110][19700102:1710a]{Parents}[2nd January 1970]

Friday 2nd January 1970.

5.10 pm

[continued]

            I suppose it is natural to find one's parents trying at this stage of one's life, but I must say that I am becoming more and more aware in both of them of the things that grate.  That is not to say that I do not admire them both tremendously as human beings -- they are both very admirable as such -- but their parenthood, like that of many others, being a full-time business and therefore completely subjective (i.e. it cannot [easily (1.2.70.)]  be shaped or acted like e.g. one's character at a party), leaves much to be desired.  That is not to say that I should do any better -- although I should try to -- nor that it is their fault.

[PostedBlogger06122012]

{Literary misgivings}[2nd January 1970]

[Redbook1:110][19700102:1710]{Literary misgivings}[2nd January 1970]

Friday 2nd January 1970.

5.10 pm

I had been a bit worried about my write-up [of the previous term’s leavers] in the [...] House book, but looking at it now after leaving it for two weeks, I think it is all right.  I am not as kind as I might have been, but I wrote the truth as I saw it.  I may cause offence to some; I think KTN may be angry at my write up of him, which is a pity: all of what I said about him I believe, but I could have phrased it better to give emphasis to the nice points of his character.

[PostedBlogger05122012]

{Immaturity}[31st December 1969]

[Redbook1:109][19691231:0000]{Immaturity}[31st December 1969]

Wednesday 31st December, 1969.

            To say that someone is "immature", as D often does, is dangerous because it implies a condemnation -- as though it was their fault, which it is not necessarily.

            So the Sixties end in snow, and whirling snowflakes usher in the new decade.

            KD has not got in to Oxford, which hardens me in my conviction that this whole Oxbridge business is one big fraud.  I should have said that K’s academic intelligence was higher than mine, although of course it is very difficult for me to tell.  Yet I am into [College] -- thank God -- and he is not ....

            The Sizzling Sixties?  The Swinging Sixties?  The Simple Sixties?  The Silly Sixties?

            I met at FS’s party on Monday a girl called ZT.  She is rather peculiar; she is six feet tall in stocking feet, wears (I think) little make-up (but I'm not sure), got 8% in Use of English, has two more terms at school, but drives a car, is not inhibited or shy though easily teased, and seems rather affectionate -- already!  I have her address; she lives in [...], which makes things difficult, though I should like to see more of her.  Oh yes -- and she wants to beagle, though she has only done it once.

            It is snowing, and E [L’s nanny] is ill.  We may go up to London tomorrow.

[PostedBlogger04122012]

{The Worrier}[19th December 1969]

[Redbook1:(109B)][19691219:0000]{The Worrier}[19th December 1969]

19.12.69.(2)

The Worrier

                       

                                    Oh Worry, you bore me to tears;

                                    You are plagued with peculiar fears

                                    Of which sensible people like me

                                    Are (thank Heaven) remarkably free.

                                    You worry on things that would not

                                    Bebother me one little jot;

                                    You insist on respecting the Law:

                                    Oh, Worry, you are such a bore!

[PostedBlogger03122012]

{Driftwood}[19th December 1969]

[Redbook1:(109A)][19691219:0000]{Driftwood}[19th December 1969]

19.12.69.(1)

Driftwood

            I saw a tree, a young bush, floating down the river, water-carried, water-carrying among its branches: turning a little, slightly twisting, glistening with stray droplets: a touch of nature, uprooted in the midst of man's achievement, not by man's carelessness but by the natural order of things, by force of flood.  So, despite man, in spite of pollution and population, despite extermination and clearance, the work of nature continues regardless -- or regarding only a little.  For a barge passed, and the drifting tree ... sank.

            What's did it know, that tree?  Did it grow through summers, watch the children play beside, see the coloured boats pass slowly by?  Did it rejoice in the sun and the warm wind, and tremble at the thunderstorm and the whistling, thumping gale?  But you forget: trees cannot think, they cannot remember.  What, then?  Was it aware of the heat of the sun, the vibrations of the children's feet, the straining of the wind, the wetness of the river?  Did it know what was right for it, and what was wrong: what good for it, and what bad?  Or is such a mighty living creation merely a collection of unresponsive cells, unsentient, meaningless to itself if not to others?

[PostedBlogger02122012]

{The Leaver}[11th December 1969]

[Redbook1:108][19691211:1145a]{The Leaver}[11th December 1969]

Thursday 11th December, 11.45 a.m. [continued]

            I stayed on for twenty-four hours after everyone else had left.  It was only then that it hit me that I had lost something: a family of which I felt myself to be, in one sense, a father of a sort.  I discovered how fond I had grown of the boys and girls in the house -- not in an idealised form, but as they are, with all their faults and all their qualities.  I think they liked me, too -- several asked me if I would come back to see them the next term.  If I do, it will only be after a most careful examination of my motives.

[PostedBlogger01122012]

{Culture (continued)}[11th December 1969]

[Redbook1:107-108][19691211:1145]{Culture (continued)}[11th December 1969]

Thursday 11th December, 11.45 a.m.

[continued]

           

            ,,, [which se]es it as a part of man's historical development in the context of his history as a whole, is what I might have been going to say.  I think that the history of art as I was taught it to ‘O’ level is irrelevant. (N.B. I didn't get the ‘O’ level!).  What is wanted is an examination of culture as I defined it (above) -- bringing psychology into it as well?  A simple examination of artistic development for its own sake is practically useless unless applied.

            These people who go around galleries -- what do they look for?  There are students, taking notes on art for its own sake.  There are those who seek “culture” for its own sake -- often with quite genuine eagerness to improve their minds. Poor fools!  They merely fill themselves with cocktail-party culture.  But they do try.  There are those who add galleries to their collections of cathedrals, museums, and Places of Interest.  How many go there for a reason which is not connected with the furtherance of the ideal which caused the gallery to be set up? [sic]  In other words, how many are not part of the closed circle of art produced for consumers who consume it because it is produced?  A man who goes there to find peace of mind, surrounded by the physical expression of the thoughts of men long dead, is somewhere near a real reason for visiting an art gallery.

[PostedBlogger30112012]

{Culture (continued)}[28th November 1969]

[Redbook1:106-107][19691128:1230]{Culture (continued)}[28th November 1969]

Friday, 28th November, 12.30 p.m.

            Would e.g. abstract glass work fit into this definition?  Yes, I think so, because it would show the creator’s view of his environment unconsciously -- inevitably so.  It might not be possible for us to read it, but his attitude would be in his creative work, so long as the urge to create formed at least part of his reason for creating.

            A term like “culture” cannot -- must not -- imply any value judgement, or else no two people will ever agree on what it contains: similarly with “art”. 

            I think I am guided by the historian's approach to culture, which se[es]....

[continues]

[PostedBlogger29112012]

{Culture}[28th November 1969]

[Redbook1:106][19691128:0010]{Culture}[28th November 1969]

Friday, 28th November, 12.10 a.m.

            I have just been to a debate on "can pop and culture ever meet?"  The meeting practically never got down to brass tacks of any sort, largely owing to the difficulties encountered in defining “culture”.  I was tempted to speak myself, but I had not quite got my ideas straight at that stage, and we had to leave early.

            Culture could be defined as the way man sees his environment, especially his human environment, as shown in his actions, and in particular by those of his actions which are not essential to his physical survival.

            This would include those parts of Pop produced not with the prime intention of making money from the mass market, but to satisfy some need for self-expression in the producer.

[PostedBlogger28112012]

{Treason}[23rd November 1969]

[Redbook1:105][19691123:1600a]{Treason}[23rd November 1969]

Sunday, 23rd November, 4 pm. [continued]

            "The Red and the White”: an afterthought:

(1) the Whites wore German-type uniforms (said V) -- did they in "real life"?

(2) the crucial point of the whole film from my point of view was when a Red said: “One cannot be forced into treason”.  Was that cynically meant?  Or was it serious?

[PostedBlogger27112012]

{Memory}[23rd November 1969]

[Redbook1:105][19691123:1600]{Memory}[23rd November 1969]

Sunday, 23rd November, 4 pm.

            Could I train my memory to act like a three (or even four?) dimensional framework of bright coloured blobs, each linked to those things that most concern it?  Then if each fact I learned was slotted away in its blob, I might be able to find it again easily, with its co-coordinating factors.

[PostedBlogger26112012]

{The Cliff-edge}[20th November 1969]

[Redbook1:105][19691120:0045]{The Cliff-edge}[20th November 1969]

Thursday 20th November, 12.45 a.m.

(waking(?))

“Here, a cliff-edge.

“If I were to jump, I should, for one brief moment, be lord of Creation.

“Shall I jump?

“I shall jump.

“I will jump; therefore, I shall be lord of Creation.

"Therefore, I am Lord of Creation.

(Poised)

            “But I cannot jump.

            “Therefore, I shall not be,

            “Therefore I am not Lord of Creation.”

[PostedBlogger25112012]

{A trip to Oxford [continued(8)]}[19th November 1969]

[Redbook1:102-104][19691119:1630c]{A trip to Oxford [continued(8)]}[19th November 1969]

4.30pm Wednesday 19th November 1969 [continued]

            There was something very revivifying (?), or perhaps rejuvenating, about that half-day in Oxford.  I didn't finish it feeling any happier, superficially, but I felt straightened inside; more certain, perhaps, of what I was uncertain about.  Yet what in that trip caused this?  Nothing in the detail; just, I think, the fact of being away from [the school] and in the company of people whom I knew, although I did not know them, that I could trust.  If that is “liberalisation", then roll on!

We went to a tea shoppe opposite Fullers (?) since Fullers was ... fuller.  Inside I became, at one stage, very red for no reason, and so, being embarrassed, even redder and more embarrassed.  I then -- surprise? -- asked if the room was hot or if it was just me.  To hell with position!  Why can't I be just me?

            F and I looked at Lincoln College, which F is trying for.  Something he said suddenly made me wonder if it was all worth it -- something he said about people there talking about football and beer all the time.  And IA wrote back from New College, Oxford -- was it? -- saying that the promised land had not turned out to be quite so marvellous after all....  Oh God, please not another [School]!  But Oh God, please let me get there, even if it is.

            We joined the others at Blackwell's, where I found a fascinating-looking book on children's games all over England and their relevance to history and pre--history (I think).  Their railway history section was ridiculously small -- but perhaps there was more stored away.  When Blackwell's shut soon afterwards, V -- the system encourages surnames about [teachers] and full names about boys -- took us past the Sheldonian, the Bodleian (and the Radcliffe Reading Room), and to Christchurch College, his old college.  We went into the Cathedral as the choir were coming out, and looked around.  After a few minutes someone said he was going to lock up the Cathedral so we left again.  That seems all wrong to me -- locking people out.

            It was bitterly cold outside.  Everything seemed strangely unreal, or extra-real.  We climbed some stone steps -- so worn in the middle they try to push you back -- which might have come from "a man for all seasons", but Christchurch (dining) Hall was closed for repairs.  We looked at the remains of an old abbey (?) in a small court next door, then returned the way we had come via Christchurch library and Hertford College.  I should add that all this time V never stopped talking, prompted and answered by all of us, on everything from life at Oxford when he was there to the history and purpose of individual buildings.  We went to a pub called the Turf, where we each had half a pint of beer and a meal.  Our chicken pies were individual, dry, and tasteless; B’s ham and chips look much nicer. B drank all his beer in the first seven minutes and became rather merry.  We discussed Marlow’s Faustus (?), for which he is being auditioned in a minor part, and Tamburlaine (?) the Great.*  There was a parrot or other bird which kept wolf whistling; it took me about twenty minutes to realise that it was not a man.  There were some awkward silences.

            Afterwards we bypassed the main cinema, which was showing "I am curious – Yellow”, which F and I would both have liked to have seen, and went to the Scala to see intellectual films.  The first one was modelled vaguely on “Kind Hearts and Coronets”, but was not nearly so funny, except for a scene explaining Cambridge life.  I suspect it was made by Oxford or Cambridge -- probably Cambridge -- graduates between five and ten years ago.  The second one was called “The Red and the White”, and was interesting as a piece of history but bad by the standards of today.  Nevertheless, it was less biased than I expected.  It showed, I think (English subtitles), the fate of a Hungarian detachment of ex P.O.W.s fighting for the Reds in Russia after 1917, in the civil war against the Whites.  There was a marvellous slow-motion horsemen sequence at the beginning, but I felt that on the whole the film owed a lot to 1920’s Westerns (I hope there were some!)  -- U.S. cavalry to the rescue, that kind of thing.

            Afterwards we came home; silence after Swindon.

*Neither of which I knew anything about (11.4.70)

[PostedBlogger24112012]

{A trip to Oxford [continued(7)]}[19th November 1969]

[Redbook1:100-102][19691119:1630a]{A trip to Oxford [continued(7)]}[19th November 1969]

4.30pm Wednesday 19th November 1969 [continued]

            BR I cannot fully fathom yet.  He does not seem to have a real character of his own at the moment; like many children who seem nice at least from above, he appears to draw for his personality on those he meets, accommodating himself to the mood of the moment.  No doubt that will change.  What he lacks in emotional maturity -- a little -- he makes up in intelligence.  It is interesting to speculate on the origins of, and the motives for, his affected accent and slight impediment of speech.  The former may be the result of some long childhood experience (or just imitation?); but the latter is most noticeable when he is speaking in a large company in a society meeting, with all eyes on him.  I should judge that he is more sensitive and less self-reliant than one might imagine at a distance.  This would also explain his need to be charming to his elders -- which is not to suggest that it is necessarily put on for their benefit.  It is probably so deep that he believes it, in which case it can in no sense be called false.  Can a conscious mask or affectation be called false, then?  Draw me the border -- clear and defined -- between a conscious and a subconscious attitude, and I will consider labelling them in a moral sense.

             
[....]

[PostedBlogger23112012]

{A trip to Oxford [continued(6)]}[19th November 1969]

[Redbook1:100][19691119:1630]{A trip to Oxford [continued(6)]}[19th November 1969]

4.30pm Wednesday 19th November 1969

            I think V probably enjoys being back at school, where he can patronize -- in the nicest sense.  He is a very nice person, and a very vague one.  From remarks made on the day [....].  As they say, it was not what he said, it was the way he said it -- slightly nervously, but laughing at the same time.  We were talking about Sparrow, and D.H. Lawrence.

[continues]

[PostedBlogger22112012]

{A trip to Oxford [continued(5)]}[17th November 1969]

[Redbook1:99-100][19691117:0000]{A trip to Oxford [continued(5)]}[17th November 1969]

MONDAY 17th Nov.

The particular Holman Hunt picture was not perfect, especially as far as expressions went; but it did include a small boy -- the one holding a container for grape-juice (?) -- whose expression haunts me yet.  He is quite incidental to the main subject of the picture; but if my memory serves me right, he is the only character in the picture who is looking out of the picture at the person looking in, and he thus lives on a completely different plane from the rest of them.  He is also very beautifully drawn.  How awful -- I am still inhibited enough to feel guilty whenever I think of a male body as being beautiful.  And yet it's not a question of male or female -- the human body is beautiful.  Why?  Because of the psychological urges which motivates us?  If that is so, it is the social urge which counts for more than the sexual urge in our appreciation of art involving characters.  This must be so, because the sight of any person awakens the social urge -- which is always present, positively or negatively -- whereas more significant titillatory triggers are required to arouse sexual feelings, which are not always with most of us.  Unfortunately the two are very much mingled -- I say “unfortunately” from the point of view of art alone -- and even the artists are often uncertain as to why they paint a particular character in a particular way.

[continues]

[PostedBlogger21112012]

{A trip to Oxford [continued(4)]}[16th November 1969]

[Redbook1:99][19691116:1645c]{A trip to Oxford [continued(4)]}[16th November 1969]

Sunday 16th November, 4.45pm [continued]

            The car journey to Oxford was full of little undercurrents of uncertainty, but nevertheless the conversation was quite enjoyable.  Conversation started off with a real old conversation starter -- The Winter’s Tale at Stratford, I think it was -- but became more interesting (for me, who hadn't seen that production) later -- significantly, I cannot remember what it was about at that stage.

            We saw the picture gallery -- I think -- of the Ashmolean.  I discovered to my delight that the only thing F really liked was Holman Hunt’s Anglo-Saxons [sic] (?)  (or Ancient Brits?) sheltering a Roman missionary from the Druids.  He preferred the Pre-Raphaelite room to anywhere else.  I had to exorcise a mental block against Victorian art that I discovered in myself; having done so, I felt inclined to agree with him.

[continues]

[PostedBlogger20112012]

{A trip to Oxford [continued(3)]}[16th November 1969]

[Redbook1:97-98][19691116:1645b]{A trip to Oxford [continued(3)]}[16th November 1969]

Sunday 16th November, 4.45pm [continued]

            F.S. is one of the few people at this school that I really like.  We often disagree; one day we shall disagree about something of major importance; but he is the only person I can think of who I have never known be vindictive, spiteful, or underhand.  When he is angry, he is angry sincerely, openly, and he would never go out and slam the door.  That small thing is symptomatic of an incredible difference between him and (say) T.E. or B.G..  I cannot be objective enough about myself to compare us.

            He is regarded as a very "cultural” person – probably because he is fairly near the borders of sanity at times.  This is not meant to be vindictive or unkind, nor is it; I am simply writing the truth as it appears through my eyes.  His emotional background is disturbed.  He is subject to fits of depression, more acute than most of us.  Like me, he cherishes books for the sake of security.  [....]

            His own slightly apart view of life could make him into something we would call great.  His style, which many here glorify, is juvenile and immature -- but holds the seeds of greatness.  If he can but gain control of it, and learn not to let himself be carried away, I think he will be good.  He may be good already, in the market sense of the word, but not, for what it's worth, in my opinion.

            I have come to rely fairly heavily this term on his willingness to listen and to take account of my ideas and problems -- even when he does it humorously, his approach is serious enough to be helpful.  I think he may have found my own willingness to listen to him a help.  Odd that my one real contact with sanity in [the] House should be someone who is virtually a psychiatric case.

            That is not to say that I dislike the other people in this house.  I love them -- but that is another matter.

[continues]

[PostedBlogger19112012]

{A trip to Oxford [continued(2)]}[16th November 1969]

[Redbook1:97][19691116:1645a]{A trip to Oxford [continued(2)]}[16th November 1969]

Sunday 16th November, 4.45pm [continued]

            A little note received in lunch, saying we shall be leaving immediately afterwards and do I still want to come?  signed B.R..  I fold over the paper to put his signature on the outside, add “[House name] Yes” underneath, and send it back.  Brevity is the soul of wit?  Or Precision is the essence of showmanship?

            Ten minutes after the stated time I arrive to find only one other person there – F.S., strangely enough.  My calculations appear to have mis-fired; instead of arriving thirty seconds after everyone else, I have to wait three minutes.  Ah well!

            Stop taking yourself off, [...], and stop this fatuous and frivolous style. (With apologies to the housemaster).

[continues]

[PostedBlogger18112012]

{A trip to Oxford}[16th November 1969]

[Redbook1:96-97][19691116:1645]{A trip to Oxford}[16th November 1969]

Sunday 16th November, 4.45pm

            For once I feel like writing in diary form, because an actual event has happened which, though seemingly boring, holds interest for me at least.

            I went to Oxford yesterday.  It was to have been a trip to see “Twelfth Night” by a dozen or so members of the Literary and Arts Society, but both transport and tickets fell through, so [...]V, the society's president, took three of us in his car: the two secretaries, F.S. and B.R, and myself.

            Seen objectively, we had what could have been a very boring time.  It was (continuously) cold and (intermittently) wet.  We went to the Ashmolean, had tea in a hot restaurant, visited Blackwell's, had a look at several of the colleges, including Christchurch, had supper at the Turf, saw two films at the Scala cinema, and came home.

            I feel changed by it, somehow.  It has lifted me out of a short term rut of hopelessness -- as I intended -- but for some reason I find myself now in a longer-run sense of complete pointlessness -- which is very different.  In the former I have an aim which I fear I shall never attain; in the latter, the aims themselves begin to seem worthless.

            Partly because of the cold, partly because of the unusual situation, I feel myself now to have seen things then with slightly different eyes -- both people and environment.  Oxford is a very peculiar place.*

*(I’m a showman at heart).

[continues]

            [PostedBlogger17112012]