From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 12:47 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request In a message dated 4/19/00 12:38:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rumrich@mail.utexas.edu writes: << I wonder if the very structure of Christian belief as articulated by Hegel and then co-opted by Marx is somehow prone to inspire such large-scale atrocities? >> The structure of Christian belief articulated by Hegel is actually more of a move toward pantheism and away from traditional Christianity, at least so far as I can tell from his blurring of subject/object distinction. I know Hegel is impossible without German Protestantism as background, and I'm pretty sure Hegel knew that himself -- but I still find it difficult to really identify Hegel with Christian thought. And then as it was later co-opted by Marx...well, I agree Marxism is a development of the Judeo-Christian tradition as it worked itself out in Protestant democracies and the synagogue, but it's a pretty radical departure in that it is a development that leaves God out of the process. In my experience it's not the belief that matters, but the motives of the persons holding the belief. Someone motivated toward the more evil forms of selfishness will always find a way. . . Jim From: Deborah Mattingly Conner [muse@iland.net] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 12:21 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 12:50:09 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: milton-l@richmond.edu Well, now you're heading into Jung's territory. The sort of thing he spent a lifetime looking at as both empiricist and philosopher. ----- Original Message ----- From: "john rumrich" To: Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 6:17 PM Subject: Re: request : I wonder if the very structure of Christian belief as articulated by : Hegel and then co-opted by Marx is somehow prone to inspire such : large-scale atrocities?. . . . : : : From: Carol Barton [cbartonphd@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 5:38 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: Milton's politics To my comment to Hugh Wilson that "what we seem to be omitting here is Milton's reservation > >of all of these rights to "th'upright heart and pure": he had seen the folly > >of casting pearls among "Hoggs / That bawle for freedom in their senceless > >mood, / And still revolt when truth would set them free" in Mrs. Attaway's > >response to the _DDD_ , John Leonard writes, > I think that this is unfair to Mrs Attaway and a distortion of "Sonnet XII". > Nathaniel Henry led Miltonists astray when (in 1951) he told us that > Milton's true target in "Sonnet XII" was the radical sects, not the > Presbyterians. I think that the Presbyterians are Milton's target > throughout "Sonnet XII." "Revolt" in "still revolt when truth would set > them free" need not have its modern meaning. It might have the now obsolete > sense "To draw back from a course of action, etc.; to return to one's > allegiance. Obs." (OED 2b). This sense was current in Milton's time, and it > perfectly suits the backsliding Presbyterians, who pusillanimously draw back > from Milton's arguments for divorce, and return to the blind old traditional > interpretations of Matthew 19. If I am right, it follows that "Sonnet XII" > can be sharpened away from ambiguity. Milton puns on "revolt" in precisely > this sense in his prose--and Presbyterian backsliders are always his target. > I give some examples in my essay "Revolting as Backsliding in Milton's > 'Sonnet XII'", published in N&Q in about 1996. Sorry for the > self-promotion, but it is depressing to see Nathaniel Henry's misreading > repeated again and again. I don't disagree at all, John (and would never interpret Sonnet XII any other way), as far as the meaning of "revolt" is concerned. But I do think Mrs. Attaway and her paramour made self-serving use of an argument that wasn't meant to sanction rash action like theirs. As far as the referent of Sonnet XII, my comment invoked the poem in the sense that it expresses Milton's frustration with trying to reason with any of those backsliding Scottish Presbyterians who ultimately gobbled up _Eikon Basilike_ as though it were a Hershey bar, wept for poor martyred Charles, and pleaded for the return of the monarchy. And yes, of course they were notorious for their backsliding in terms of DDD as well (Thomas Young in particular was one of Milton's more vocal detractors): but if that (clinging to Matthew 19) is the "revolt" to which Milton refers, how do you explain the final line of the sonnet ("For all this waste of wealth and loss of blood"?) That, it seems to me, is a direct reference to the double costs of civil war. With equal respect, Carol Barton From: Dan Knauss [tiresias@juno.com] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 12:11 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Cc: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request This message uses a character set that is not supported by the Internet Service. To view the original message content, open the attached message. If the text doesn't display correctly, save the attachment to disk, and then open it using a viewer that can display the original character set. From: colin cartwright [colcris@dircon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 6:13 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Cc: colcris@dircon.co.uk Subject: Re: request It now appears that John Rumrich is seeking to blame the atrocities of some communist systems on the 'structure of Christian belief' ("I wonder if the very structure of Christian belief as articulated by Hegel and then co-opted by Marx is somehow prone to inspire such large-scale atrocities ?"). One only has to take a close look at the teachings of Jesus to conclude that there is nothing here to inspire atrocity, only the inspiration to 'love God, to love your neighbour and love your enemy'. All Hegel and Marx's 'co-option' shows is that the truth can be abused and mis-used, as some churches have themselves unwittingly demonstrated through history, partly by allowing themselves to be tied to closely to the nation-state. It is clear that Milton himself read and was interested in the theology of the Anabaptists of the radical reformation, who stood out against the abuses of the established churches. Could I encourage you John, to read 'The Politics of Jesus' by John Howard Yoder, someone very much influenced by the Anabaptist example of demonstrating the heart of the Christian faith ?. ---------- >From: john rumrich >To: milton-l@richmond.edu >Subject: Re: request >Date: Fri, Apr 14, 2000, 11:17 pm > >I wonder if the very structure of Christian belief as articulated by >Hegel and then co-opted by Marx is somehow prone to inspire such >large-scale atrocities? > > > >In a message dated 4/13/00 5:20:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > >mjksezth@fs1.ce.umist.ac.uk writes: > > > ><< How can you reasonably claim, Jim, that being an atheist is not > > "holding any specific belief system". Yes you cannot prove the > > existence of "God", "otherness" ,or whatever you want to call it, by > > rational argument but neither can you, by the same lights, disprove > > that existence. > > Hence to be an atheist is to hold a belief. If we want to look for > > moral "truth" or "good" on rational grounds ALONE we should all be > > agnostic. (Actually quite a respectable thing to be). > > > > Tony Hill >> > > > >My atheism wasn't thought out to the extent that I would call it a "belief > >SYSTEM" (caps for emphasis). In other words, it was just a belief rather > >than a belief "system." Some atheisms are indeed belief systems. For me, > >atheism was just a rejection of what I thought I saw when I looked into the > >Catholicism in which I was raised. > > > >Many Christian thinkers (like Pascal) would agree with you -- that reason > >alone leads to contradictions. The inference that agnosticism is the only > >rational belief system doesn't follow, however. If God is personally > >experienced, then unbelief is an irrational position (at least for the > >individual who had the experience). And really, I think that's the only > >valid reason to believe in God -- direct personal experience. The agnostic > >position becomes a bit irrational at this point. The choices offered by > >agnosticism (and really atheism as well) are: > > > >1. That God does not exist, and many of the most moral, intelligent and sane > >people who have ever lived must be fundamentally unstable because they > >believe in God through direct personal experience. > > > >2. That God does exist, but many moral, intelligent and sane people just > >haven't had a personal verification of that existence yet (atheists and > >agnostics). > > > >I'm drawing from the best examples of both classes, of course. But at least > >the first position allows for equal respect for all people regardless of > >their belief, and does indeed take into account some basic facts about human > >history -- that the people who defined morality and sanity for us all these > >thousands of years were indeed theists of some sort. The second position > >makes any theistic position inherently irrational, and forces us to call > >irrational people like Christ, Buddha, Ghandi, and any one of hundreds of > >people I've met on a daily basis who happen to believe in God but are very > >powerful, and stable, individuals. > > > >If we want to pursue negative examples, atheists would just throw up the > >Inquisition in my face, and I would throw up 10-50 million dead Russians > >under Stalin and Lenin, Tianamen Square, the Killing Fields in Cambodia, and > >every injustice committed by every Marxist regime that has ever existed. > >Since both sides have much to be proud of and much to be ashamed of, there's > >no use pursuing negative arguments. > > > >So if you're an agnostic, I think you should look more closely too :) > > > >Jim > From: Chris Clark [christopher.clark@kcl.ac.uk] Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2000 4:03 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request In response to the general discussion about religion and Hegel/Marx: What makes belief systems "somehow prone to inspire such large-scale atrocities" is totalization and absolutism. i.e. I am right, you are wrong, you are my enemy - the Jihad mentality (and I don't mean that in a religiously specific way - I'm just referring to the "You are either with us or against us" philosophy). There have been atrocities by all kinds of groups, religious, political or otherwise throughout history. They arise from the splitting of humanity into "us" and "them." This is the problem, and it arises from the way some people and groups within faiths define themselves and act. Cheers Chris Christopher.Clark@kcl.ac.uk From: Dan Knauss [tiresias@juno.com] Sent: Friday, April 21, 2000 1:23 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 12:47:11 EDT AntiUtopia@aol.com writes: > The structure of Christian belief articulated by Hegel is actually > more of a > move toward pantheism and away from traditional Christianity, at > least so far > as I can tell from his blurring of subject/object distinction. I > know Hegel > is impossible without German Protestantism as background, and I'm > pretty sure > Hegel knew that himself -- but I still find it difficult to really > identify > Hegel with Christian thought. And then as it was later co-opted by > Marx...well, I agree Marxism is a development of the Judeo-Christian > tradition as it worked itself out in Protestant democracies and the > synagogue, but it's a pretty radical departure in that it is a > development > that leaves God out of the process. Not exactly...at the end of Marxist history--its religious goal--is the pure socialist man, the "species-being," man transformed into divinity. A. O. Lovejoy pointed this sort of thing out when he saw 19th and 20th century conceptions of history as Neoplatonism temporalized--the Gnostic ascent toward the One becomes a progress through time from the past into the future. Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey is a explicit exposition of this view. To turn this back to Milton, it also is a Neoplatonic hierarchy of being that produces the Satanic sense of "injured merit," and the same rivalrous psychopathology exists in any Leftist thought that has a historical self-consciousness--from Puritanism (the original Left of modernity) onward. The present and the future are valorized in opposition to the past, which is lower and inferior, in both a spatial and qualitative sense. It is the error of Satan in Paradise Lost to make all hierarchies hierarchies of value in which the top God-position is the only one where one can escape inferiority. Protestantism internalized this self-destructive mentality, and we are still steeped in it--more now in politics (on both sides of the political spectrum) than in religion--especially academic politics. Academia seems to have an abundance of Raphael Hythloday's who think they understand history, hierarchies, power and justice as little more than a nasty Nietzschean affair, yet they can't leave it alone and are busy climbing their own Neoplatonic chains of being, i.e., the tenure system. Dan Knauss From: Tmsandefur@aol.com Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 1:38 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request This message uses a character set that is not supported by the Internet Service. To view the original message content, open the attached message. If the text doesn't display correctly, save the attachment to disk, and then open it using a viewer that can display the original character set. From: Michael Bryson [m-bryson@nwu.edu] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 11:02 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: RE: request Truth can be abused and misused. So can belief. The two are not the same. The "structure of Christian belief" suggests a bifurcation of humanity into those for whom sacred history moves confidently into a promised future, and those whom sacred history will use as pavement. The very idea of a *universal* and *personal* deity who in a fit of totalism declares himself to be "Alpha and Omega" (Revelation 21:6), represents a crucial, and potentially terrifying movement from the claims of Yahweh, who rather more modestly declares "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3). Moving from henotheism in Exodus (the preference for one god among many other gods) to monotheism in Revelation (the assertion that only one god is real with the concomitant claim that all other "gods" are necessarily unreal) involves a corresponding movement away from a position that merely expresses a preference for one's own way of life, and toward a position of intolerance of others' right to exist at all. Moving from "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" to "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end" encapsulates a dramatic shift in worldviews from one in which difference is recognized and tolerated, to one in which difference is a standing outside of totality. To stand apart from the Yahweh of Exodus is to be no part of the emerging people of Israel. To stand apart from the Alpha and Omega is to be no part of existence itself. Thus the stage is set rather neatly for atrocities. Those who do not, properly speaking, exist, can easily be swept aside in whatever pogrom is currently in fashion. Michael Bryson -----Original Message----- From: owner-milton-l@richmond.edu [mailto:owner-milton-l@richmond.edu]On Behalf Of colin cartwright Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 5:13 AM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Cc: colcris@dircon.co.uk Subject: Re: request It now appears that John Rumrich is seeking to blame the atrocities of some communist systems on the 'structure of Christian belief' ("I wonder if the very structure of Christian belief as articulated by Hegel and then co-opted by Marx is somehow prone to inspire such large-scale atrocities ?"). One only has to take a close look at the teachings of Jesus to conclude that there is nothing here to inspire atrocity, only the inspiration to 'love God, to love your neighbour and love your enemy'. All Hegel and Marx's 'co-option' shows is that the truth can be abused and mis-used, as some churches have themselves unwittingly demonstrated through history, partly by allowing themselves to be tied to closely to the nation-state. It is clear that Milton himself read and was interested in the theology of the Anabaptists of the radical reformation, who stood out against the abuses of the established churches. Could I encourage you John, to read 'The Politics of Jesus' by John Howard Yoder, someone very much influenced by the Anabaptist example of demonstrating the heart of the Christian faith ?. ---------- >From: john rumrich >To: milton-l@richmond.edu >Subject: Re: request >Date: Fri, Apr 14, 2000, 11:17 pm > >I wonder if the very structure of Christian belief as articulated by >Hegel and then co-opted by Marx is somehow prone to inspire such >large-scale atrocities? > > > >In a message dated 4/13/00 5:20:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > >mjksezth@fs1.ce.umist.ac.uk writes: > > > ><< How can you reasonably claim, Jim, that being an atheist is not > > "holding any specific belief system". Yes you cannot prove the > > existence of "God", "otherness" ,or whatever you want to call it, by > > rational argument but neither can you, by the same lights, disprove > > that existence. > > Hence to be an atheist is to hold a belief. If we want to look for > > moral "truth" or "good" on rational grounds ALONE we should all be > > agnostic. (Actually quite a respectable thing to be). > > > > Tony Hill >> > > > >My atheism wasn't thought out to the extent that I would call it a "belief > >SYSTEM" (caps for emphasis). In other words, it was just a belief rather > >than a belief "system." Some atheisms are indeed belief systems. For me, > >atheism was just a rejection of what I thought I saw when I looked into the > >Catholicism in which I was raised. > > > >Many Christian thinkers (like Pascal) would agree with you -- that reason > >alone leads to contradictions. The inference that agnosticism is the only > >rational belief system doesn't follow, however. If God is personally > >experienced, then unbelief is an irrational position (at least for the > >individual who had the experience). And really, I think that's the only > >valid reason to believe in God -- direct personal experience. The agnostic > >position becomes a bit irrational at this point. The choices offered by > >agnosticism (and really atheism as well) are: > > > >1. That God does not exist, and many of the most moral, intelligent and sane > >people who have ever lived must be fundamentally unstable because they > >believe in God through direct personal experience. > > > >2. That God does exist, but many moral, intelligent and sane people just > >haven't had a personal verification of that existence yet (atheists and > >agnostics). > > > >I'm drawing from the best examples of both classes, of course. But at least > >the first position allows for equal respect for all people regardless of > >their belief, and does indeed take into account some basic facts about human > >history -- that the people who defined morality and sanity for us all these > >thousands of years were indeed theists of some sort. The second position > >makes any theistic position inherently irrational, and forces us to call > >irrational people like Christ, Buddha, Ghandi, and any one of hundreds of > >people I've met on a daily basis who happen to believe in God but are very > >powerful, and stable, individuals. > > > >If we want to pursue negative examples, atheists would just throw up the > >Inquisition in my face, and I would throw up 10-50 million dead Russians > >under Stalin and Lenin, Tianamen Square, the Killing Fields in Cambodia, and > >every injustice committed by every Marxist regime that has ever existed. > >Since both sides have much to be proud of and much to be ashamed of, there's > >no use pursuing negative arguments. > > > >So if you're an agnostic, I think you should look more closely too :) > > > >Jim > From: colin cartwright [colcris@dircon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 12:03 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Cc: colcris@dircon.co.uk Subject: Re: request Thank you 'Tmsandefur' for quoting scripture in response to my contention that 'there is nothing in the teaching of Jesus to inspire atrocity'. However, this partly serves to prove one of the points I was trying to make: that people have mis-used scripture to serve their own ends. Your use of Luke 19:26&27 for example. These are the words of a king within a story told by Jesus, not the words of Jesus himself. Elsewhere Jesus said that anyone who wanted to be king should be 'servant of all' and he made it clear that he did not propose to rule in the same way that earthly kings did (eg. Mark 10 : 35 - 45 / John 13 : 1 - 17 & 18 : 33 - 40). Despite a whole number of difficult and uncompromising sayings, an overall study of the life and teachings of Jesus is unambiguous in this respect: nowhere does Jesus inspire people to commit violence against others, whatever their beliefs or unbelief. There are many, many passages I could point to to demonstrate this, but neither of us have enough time for this, plus I suspect that nothing I say will make any difference at all to your thinking. One final remark, to get back 'on subject'. John Milton is one of many millions of people throughout history to have been positively inspired by Jesus. I believe that one of the reasons why Christ was so important to Milton's thought was partly because he recognised that Jesus encouraged people to respect other view-points rather than rush to summary judgement. ---------- >From: Tmsandefur@aol.com >To: milton-l@richmond.edu >Subject: Re: request >Date: Thu, Apr 20, 2000, 5:37 pm > ><that there is nothing here to inspire atrocity, only the inspiration to >'love God, to love your neighbour and love your enemy'. >> > >LOL. Matthew 10:34-39: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I >came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance >against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter >in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own >household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of >me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. >And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of >me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for >my sake shall find it." > >Luke 19:26-27: "For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be >given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away >from him. But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over >them, bring hither, and slay them before me." > >John 15:6: "If a man abideth not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and >is withered; >and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." > >2 Thessalonians 1:7-9: "And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the >Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming >fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the >gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting >destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power?" > >?Yeah?.REAL loving. Uh huh. > >$ > >(This is not to mention Matthew 3:12, 8:12, 11:20-24,13:30, 42, 22:13, >24:51, 25:30, Luke 13:28, John 5:24, and Acts 13:9-12, where God just >blinds some guy for the fun of it. And of course, this all leaves out the >Old Testament.) > From: Chapman, Keith [kechapman@davidson.edu] Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 3:33 PM To: 'milton-l@richmond.edu' Subject: RE: request > I would like to pose a question to the Miltonian powers that be...I am > trying to research a paper comparing either Satan to Nietzsche's Over Man > and/or prelapsarian Adam and Eve to Nietzsche's Last Man scenario. > Unfortunately, I have come up fairly empty handed with finding criticism > that relates Nietzsche to Milton. I would appreciate any help I can get. > Thank you very much. > > Keith Chapman From: melsky [melsky@gc.cuny.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 9:36 AM To: MILTON-L Subject: CUNY Shakespeare Conference My apologies for the multiple posting, but several people have inquired = about the following: Admission is free and open to the public The Annual CUNY Shakespeare Conference "Th'Observed of All Observers": New Perspectives on Hamlet Speakers: =20 Andrei Serban, Director=20 "Visualizing Hamlet" =20 Stephen Booth, Professor of English University of California, Berkeley = "O, What a Rogue and Peasant Slave"=20 Respondent:=20 Kate D. Levin City College of New York, CUNY=20 =20 Reception to follow=20 Conference Organizer: Richard C. McCoy Queens College and Graduate Center, CUNY Friday, May 5, 2000 4:00 - 5:30pm=20 Baisley Powell Elebash Recital Hall=20 The CUNY Graduate Center 365 Fifth Avenue New York NY 10016-4309=20 http://web.gsuc.cuny.edu/renaissancestudies/Events99-00/shakes.htm =20 =20 =20 Sponsored by The Ph.D. Program in English, the Sidney E. Cohn and Lucille Lortel = Chairs in Theatre Studies, and the CUNY Renaissance Studies Certificate = Program at the Graduate Center, with the generous assistance of the CUNY = Faculty Development Program and the Simon H. Rifkind Center for the = Humanities and the Arts, CCNY For further information, contact Martin Elsky, Renaissance Studies = Certificate Program=20 Telephone: 212-817-8760=20 E-Mail: melsky@gc.cuny.edu From: AntiUtopia@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 7:00 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request This message uses a character set that is not supported by the Internet Service. To view the original message content, open the attached message. If the text doesn't display correctly, save the attachment to disk, and then open it using a viewer that can display the original character set. From: Computerworld_Daily@Computerworld.com Sent: Friday, April 28, 2000 5:47 PM To: KCREAMER@RICHMOND.EDU Subject: U.S. proposes Microsoft breakup COMPUTERWORLD AFTERNOON UPDATE April 28, 2000 ____________________________________________________________ SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE This message was broadcast to: KCREAMER@RICHMOND.EDU To subscribe or unsubscribe to Computerworld's e-mail newsletters, go to: http://iis.computerworld.com/newsletters/cwSubscribe.asp and LOGIN using the email address shown above. ____________________________________________________________ In this issue: * U.S. proposes Microsoft breakup * SAP, and some R/3 users, slap back at software upgrade study * Study: e-commerce sites need more than loyalty programs * Sabre launching travel-industry IT consulting unit * Corel stock slide threatens merger plans * Intel to phase out processor serial numbers * MCI WorldCom, Sprint shareholders approve merger plan ____________________________________________________________ /*** ADVERTISEMENT ****************************************\ SAS & Engage Partner to Provide Superior Web-Based Marketing What do you get when you combine e-intelligence and real-time profiling? The ability to personalize the customer experience across all channels, including the Internet. SAS and Engage Technologies are partnering to provide the power to know about your business customers. http://www.sas.com/cwblast \**********************************************************/ U.S. proposes Microsoft breakup As expected, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) today proposed that a federal judge order the breakup of Microsoft Corp. into two separate and competing companies. http://www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/CWFlash/000428ms ____________________________________________________________ SAP, and some R/3 users, slap back at software upgrade study SAP officials claim that a report on the cost of upgrading the company's business applications, issued earlier this week by AMR Research, is "incomplete" and "biased." http://www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/CWFlash/000428DA4E ____________________________________________________________ Study: e-commerce sites need more than loyalty programs Online buyers surveyed by Jupiter Communications put a higher priority on things such as the ease of returning products and customer service. http://www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/CWFlash/000428DA4A ____________________________________________________________ Sabre launching travel-industry IT consulting unit The Texas-based company will look to help new online ventures that are building e-commerce Web sites linked to its computerized reservation system. http://www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/CWFlash/000428DA52 /*** ADVERTISEMENT ****************************************\ How wide is your UNIX Comfort Zone? Presenting a UNIX refresher for developers.This live Roundtable discussion is about understanding how the OS's quirks affect the development environment. Establish a UNIX comfort zone with the IT experts on SolutionCentral. http://www.solutioncentral.com/rt/interwunix \**********************************************************/ Corel stock slide threatens merger plans Inprise/Borland asks for re-evaluation as merger partner's shares drop from high teens to single digits. http://www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/CWFlash/000428DA42 ____________________________________________________________ Intel to phase out processor serial numbers Consumer groups praise move as a boon for the privacy of customers. http://www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/CWFlash/000428DA46 ____________________________________________________________ MCI WorldCom, Sprint shareholders approve merger plan But the deal between the two telecommunications carriers still may face government hurdles before it can become official. http://www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/CWFlash/000428DA5A ____________________________________________________________ Review: What if they gave a Comdex and no one came? Our reviewer found thin crowds and thinner offerings, but some interesting stuff in out-of-the-way places. http://www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/CWFlash/000420D742 ____________________________________________________________ Review: What if they gave a Comdex and no one came? Our reviewer found thin crowds and thinner offerings, but some interesting stuff in out-of-the-way places. http://www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/CWFlash/000420D742 /*** ADVERTISEMENT ****************************************\ Need an IT Professional? Anderson Network has proven results in staffing IT Professional positions, including IT Managers and Directors, Java and C++ Programmers, Web Developers and System Administrators. Call us - we respond quickly to meet your needs. Contact Linda Greene at Anderson Network, 800/538-3557 or email info@andersonnetwork.com \**********************************************************/ PREMIER 100 IT LEADERS CONFERENCE --------------------------------------------- Learn IT leadership from 100 of the best in the business at Computerworld's Premier 100 IT Leaders Conference, June 19-21, 2000, at the Marriott Desert Springs Resort & Spa in Palm Desert, Calif. (details at http://www.computerworld.com/p100). Speakers and panelists include Delta Air Lines E-Leader and former CIO Charlie Feld, Ford Motor Co. CIO James Yost and Toysmart.com CEO David Lord. QUESTIONS ABOUT WINDOWS 2000? --------------------------------------------------- IT is talking Windows 2000, and we're supplying the answers on Computerworld.com's Windows 2000 forums. Stop by and ask a question, post a comment or just see what your peers are saying. If we don't have the answer to your question, our editors will track it down. Visit http://www.computerworld.com/forums/ and click on Windows 2000. FEEDBACK -------- To submit feedback about Computerworld's e-mails, contact our online customer service group at online@computerworld.com. Please include your email address in all correspondence. KCREAMER@RICHMOND.EDU ADVERTISING ----------- For information on advertising, contact Gregg_Pinsky@computerworld.com. Copyright 2000 Computerworld Inc. From: Carrol Cox [cbcox@ilstu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 3:28 PM To: milton-l@RICHMOND.EDU Subject: Re: Milton in 20th Century TOM DILLINGHAM wrote: > many of the "lesser" works, > especially PR). One *could* argue that PR is the greater work. (F.W. Bateson did so argue.) And the Temptation of Athens is surely an incidence of Pound's claim that artists are the antennae of the race. Along with Pope's Dunciad (especially the introduction by Martinus Scriblerus) it constitutes the earliest recognition that the category of "the best books" had become many times the number of books that any one person could read even most of. One of the red threads that runs through the literature and criticism of the last three centuries is the struggle for the way to carve down this massive pile to humanly credible size. You can see it in the section on books in the *Prelude*, in Whitman, in Twain's free-wheeling damnation of almost every writer in sight, in Eliot's "Tradition and the Individual Talent," in Pound's ABC of Poetry and Guide to Kulchur, in the absurd touchstones of Matthew Arnold and his crusade against "anarchy." All this great tradition can be said to have its source in the Temptation of Athens in PR. Try this test. Make a list of all the *essential* books you have not read or cannot remember anything about. Contrast what would have been the situation as late as 1600 -- but not as late as 1660. Carrol From: Marc Ricciardi [marccr@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 8:46 PM To: milton-l@richmond.edu Subject: Re: request This message uses a character set that is not supported by the Internet Service. To view the original message content, open the attached message. If the text doesn't display correctly, save the attachment to disk, and then open it using a viewer that can display the original character set.