From: Eric Grunin <grunin@mindspring.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 14:25:40 -0400
To: evbvd@rcn.com
Subject: Just a couple of notes

You identify the problem with Stockhausen, Corigliano, Pound et al as "ideology." This is, I suspect, not exactly what you meant to say. The problem isn't that they have "ideology" (who doesn't?), but that the ideologies that they advocate or exemplify are both dogmatic and unfeeling. [This statement is itself 'ideological' -- but a liberal ideology, which prizes the open-minded and empathic.]


From: Eve Beglarian <evbvd@rcn.com>
To: <grunin@mindspring.com>
Date: Thursday, October 4, 2001 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: Just a couple of notes

hi eric,

I understand what you mean, and ideology is perhaps not the right word, but actually I mean very specifically that even an inherently "good" ideology can lead one to very bad places when pushed too hard. it's the pushing that's the problem with "modernism" for example, not the inherent idea.

our friend pound once said: academicism isn't the excess of knowledge; it's the possession of idees fixes of how to make use of that knowledge.

and I'll argue that that's true of "liberalism" as well. my own liberalism prevented me from being able to believe in the actual existence of evil well into my thirties. (it was mary rodriguez explaining the hedda nussbaum/joel steinberg story to me that really did it) I wanted to understand every evil as error, or confusion, or weirdly wrong response to victimization, and, you know, that's actually very dangerous.

there ARE bad guys.

and while I believe that empathy is one of my tools to fight them (and I take frank's talk about good/evil within us all as a beautiful statement of exactly that idea), I do believe that it is my job to fight evil.

both within myself, and in others.

am I making any sense at all?!?!

xoxox

evb