On Sat, 29 May 2010 07:30:54 -0700, Edward Pollak wrote: >I, too, was greatly influence by "Beyond Freedom & Dignity" as >well as by "Walden II" but I must confess that a number of years >ago I reread "Walden II" and found myself tsk tsking about it's naiveté.
What influenced me most about "Beyond Freedom & Dignity" was (1) Skinner's concern with social justice and how to address social problems (i.e., his humanisn) and (2) the promise of a potential technology or a framework that could address such problems. I think that (1) is still relevant but difficult to achieve while (2) may have been somewhat naive. As implemented, I was not convinced that a system like Walden II would work outside of a small community commited believers. A somewhat similar situation is based on Paolo Soleri's concept of mega-cities which integrated architecture and ecology; see his Wikipedia entry (SDA): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paolo_Soleri >I had a similar reaction to re-reading Asimov's "Foundation" series. >There are so many books that had such a great impact on me as a >callow youth that I now dare not reread for fear of disappointment. I have thought about re-reading the Foundation series but realize that "one cannot step in the same river twice" or, in other words, the more time that passes between a first and second reading of book, the greater the likilihood that one will find that one cannot read the same book twice. What one knew before the first reading will be different from what one knows before the second time. Sometimes this can result in a richer experience but perhaps more often than not it can result in the realization that the appeal of the first reading was because one did not know or realize certain things at the time of the reading. The second reading may produce the realization that maybe people really aren't like that or that certain situations can't turn out the way they did. >So here's the question: Did these books have such a great impact >at first reading because they were great eye-opening & mind-expanding >books? In some cases, yes. Certainly, in the case of "Beyond Freedom and Dignity". But I am older than that now. >Or through the jaundiced filter of the intervening decades do we realize >that they were embarrassingly naive. Not always embarassingly naive, perhaps just naive or just embarassing. When the movie "The Big Chill" came out, I was taken by the story of a group of people whose early idealism for changing the world and leftist politics had turned into bourgeoise/middle-class capitalism. I had known people who as young adults were Marxist in their orientation and, when the 1980s came around and they were settled into their home in suburbia, turned into Yuppies. How many have found that Marx or Ayn Rand or the Bible that they embraced in their youth turned out not to be the guide that they had hoped for? Then again, I assume that there are those who have had a consistent perspective throughout their lives -- which can be either a good or bad thing. >I like to think they were still great books. They were great books but I think we thought that they offered more guidance and insight than they were capable of producing. That is, if we read the books not just for their entertainment value. >Ed >P.S. This discussion makes me so truly sad for the legions of current >students who, when asked if they read books for fun as children, look >at me like am a raving lunatic. Perhaps if you asked them what "graphic novels" or "Manga" they read, you'd get a more sympathetic response. Not exactly the same thing but it could be the equivalent experience for them. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=2827 or send a blank email to leave-2827-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
