hi pier:

here are the publications:

https://books.google.co.th/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wd0fJeTskVEC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=american+and+british+sublime&ots=NJr1QT1myy&sig=1ILhQpkffK3RFKIc31htKAjNHEM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=american%20and%20british%20sublime&f=false

https://books.google.co.th/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1Glh9SxzPIYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=american+and+british+sublime&ots=yo9cU1EF7o&sig=U6W4QWXYKpyys9LKImblWUSMMn4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=american%20and%20british%20sublime&f=false

https://books.google.co.th/books?hl=en&lr=&id=mZSNw8mhtXEC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=british+sublime&ots=5yaQAIAPRY&sig=qsqfBN8UrCrV08-ihUdUUuOXnD8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=british%20sublime&f=false

cheers

a.

hi pier:

here are the publications:

https://books.google.co.th/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wd0fJeTskVEC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=american+and+british+sublime&ots=NJr1QT1myy&sig=1ILhQpkffK3RFKIc31htKAjNHEM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=american%20and%20british%20sublime&f=false

https://books.google.co.th/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1Glh9SxzPIYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=american+and+british+sublime&ots=yo9cU1EF7o&sig=U6W4QWXYKpyys9LKImblWUSMMn4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=american%20and%20british%20sublime&f=false

https://books.google.co.th/books?hl=en&lr=&id=mZSNw8mhtXEC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=british+sublime&ots=5yaQAIAPRY&sig=qsqfBN8UrCrV08-ihUdUUuOXnD8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=british%20sublime&f=false

cheers

a.

There is not something like the European sublime. Rather, there are quite different concepts of the sublime in European history, e.g., Kant's concept of the sublime relies on Burke's but in the end it differs categorically from Burke's. The same is true of American concepts of the sublime - there are many of them. (For both, the the literature below.)

If one would have to name a general difference between European and American concepts of the sublime, one could - with many reservations - state: modern American concepts of the (natural) sublime might often include a direct reference to God, for modern European concepts of the sublime this might be less often the case.

Brady, Emily 2013: The Sublime in Modern Philosophy: Aesthetics, Ethics and Nature. Cambridge University Press.

Nicolson, Marjorie Hope 1973: Sublime in external nature. In: Wiener, Philip P. (Hg.): Dictionary of the history of ideas. Studies of selected pivotal ideas. New York, Charles Scribner's Sons.

Tuveson, Ernest Lee 1951: Space, deity, and the 'natural sublime'. Modern Language Quarterly 12: 20–38.

Kirchhoff, Thomas & Vicenzotti, Vera 2014: A historical and systematic survey of European perceptions of wilderness. Environmental Values 23 (4): 443-464.

I made corrections to my previous answer!

Hi, Pier Giuseppe! I agree with Thomas. There is a "German" sublime (Sturm und Drang, Kant's Analytic, Friedrich's paintings, Goethe's Faust and Theory of Colors), a British sublime (Addison, then Burke, then Shelley, then Mary Shelley, then Turner, then, maybe Vernon Lee, but she called it "The Beautiful"...), then a French sublime (from Boileau to the early Hugo and then the late Hugo, his book on the Pyrenees, for example), and the Spanish sublime (Torres Villarroel, Paseos y visitas; Cadalso's Noches lúgubres; Goya's Disasters of War, Pinturas negras, Munarritz's translations of Addison into Spanish)... There is even a Latin American sublime: Rivera's La vorágine, Miguel Angel Asturias's Hombres de maíz; Borges' El milagro secreto... and all of those "sublimes" are different from each other.

In the US, I do not think the Hudson River school is dealing with the sublime at all, contrary to Emerson's essays on nature... The Hudson River school is more "arcadian", "pastoral", "rustic" than let's say,  Giorgione's La tempestà... which in many ways anticipates the sublime in painting.  Maybe, in horror/SciFi literature/film I detect vestiges of an American "sublime that never was", and people keep searching for its (im)possibility (Godzilla in NY 1998???), Anne Rice's Lestat? The Titanic movie? Failed sublimes, every time!

Here is the cover of the book, Blooms brief intro, and the table of contents. If you are interested in an article, let me know. I'll ask my TA to make a pdf for you, and I'll attach it here. 

I would also say that there is a component of preservationist fervor in the American sublime which differentiates it from the various European "sublimes," and continues to this day in the work of such artists as Edward Burtynsky, for instance. If you don't already know his work, you will find an entree to it here: http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/

Dear Ms Lilliana Ramos Collado,

Yes, I want to read the material, the whole of it. So,please send me the file via email.

Thanks,

Sibaprasad Dutta 

Email: [email protected]

Dear Ms Lilliana Ramos Collado,

Yes, I want to read the material, the whole of it. So,please send me the file via email.

Thanks,

Sibaprasad Dutta 

Email: [email protected]

Oh Yes, Liliana, thanks a lot !

 I think the issue of sublimity was first handled by Longinus. Thereafter, much analysis has been made. It is difficult to distinguish American sublime from European sublime. Anyway, we mus wait for some scholarly post. 

Sibaprasad

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

Readers of this thread my find the following passage of interest, which comes from a review by Allen Mendenhall:

Bloom’s latest book, The Daemon Knows: Literary Greatness and the American Sublime, examines ambitious and representative American authors, its chapters organized by curious pairings: Whitman with Melville (the “Giant Forms” of American literature), Emerson with Dickinson (the Sage of Concord is Dickinson’s “closest imaginative father”), Hawthorne with Henry James (a relation “of direct influence”), Twain with Frost (“our only great masters with popular audiences”), Stevens with Eliot (“an intricate interlocking” developed through antithetical competition), and Faulkner with Crane (“each forces the American language to its limits”). This mostly male cast, a dozen progenitors of the American sublime, is not meant to constitute a national canon. For that, Bloom avers in his introduction, he envisions alternative selections, including more women: Edith Wharton, Willa Cather, Marianne Moore, and Flannery O’Connor. Bloom’s chosen 12 represent, instead, “our incessant effort to transcend the human without forsaking humanism.” These writers have in common a “receptivity to daemonic influx.” “What lies beyond the human for nearly all of these writers,” Bloom explains, “is the daemon.”

---End quotation

See: Harold Bloom’s American Sublime

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/harold-blooms-american-sublime/

Review of:

The Daemon Knows: Literary Greatness and the American Sublime, Harold Bloom, Penguin Random House, 524 pages.

My relevant background is American philosophy and intellectual history, not literature. Still, I certainly think pretty highly of Bloom.

I would be much inclined to understand the theme of "the daemon knows," in Emersonian terms. (Going back much further, of course, we find Socrates, and afterward neoplatonism.)  I suspect that Bloom generalizes from there. Emerson famously claimed "there is no history, only biography."  But in spite of that, he was himself deeply enmeshed in Anglo-American history and literature. More directly stated, the idea is that history (or, say, the "Oversoul") works through individuals. 

See the bibliography I assembled for Emerson's 1860 book, The Conduct of Life:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265188931_Bibliography_assembled_for_HG_Callaway_ed_2006_RW_Emerson_The_Conduct_of_Life_A_Philosophical_Reading_Lanham_MD_University_Press_of_America

In amongst a general neglect of history, its deep themes still work themselves out via a diverse cultural inheritance, directly embodied in living human beings. I take it that this point is consistent with the "future orientation" of American thought and the quasi-rationalism of American constitutionalism --one limited, succinct constitutional plan for a gigantic diversity of states and people. The typical American commitment to freedom of speech, religion and the press, e.g., are profound. Its a public mediation of all the differences and pluralism. The never-ending moral and intellectual process is perhaps the American sublime --as contrasted with the stops and stays of those who resist it.  

H.G. Callaway

Data Bibliography assembled for H.G. Callaway ed. (2006) R.W. Eme...

Hi HG, 

I have upvoted your post. Your opinion is valuable. It provides a stimulus to ponder over the issue more seriously by those who want to record posts. As for me, I am thinking over it. 

Sibaprasad

Philadelphia, PA

Dear readers,

Thanks to Dutta, for the kind words.

I'm somewhat inclined here, though, to disagree with Ramos-Collado, where she writes:

In the US, I do not think the Hudson River school is dealing with the sublime at all, contrary to Emerson's essays on nature... The Hudson River school is more "arcadian", "pastoral", "rustic" than let's say, Giorgione's La tempestà... which in many ways anticipates the sublime in painting.

---End quotation.

In some sense, I suppose that the "Hudson valley school," (which was by no means restricted to scenes of the Hudson valley), takes up Emerson's theme of Nature --which is not restricted to the early book of that title. "Self-reliance," for a new country required that we avoid imported models and create a new art and literature adapted to the new physical circumstances. To this day, the style of the American countryside, with some few remarkable exceptions, is that it appear pristine and just as nature created it, however much it has in fact been cast and recast by culture. From a romantic of nature, as it is, the ideal was to create something new and distinctive.  But the power in nature (i.e., "Nature") works through individuals (who each carry with them an implicit cultural inheritance) in interaction with Nature (and with each other). What matters basically is the "moral sentiment" or sometimes the "religious sentiment" which arises ever anew in reaction to and perception of the world encountered. 

Given the new environment, we might say, (and the interactions of diverse, imported  cultural inheritance), the interplay is to be acted out in everyday life and in art. But we are not to focus upon what has been imported but instead on the inspirations of Nature, which eventually function to fuse the cultural imports in terms of the requirement of making a common life.  In his later work, Emerson focuses on the carriers of culture themselves as parts of Nature which inspire our creative response. Nature may then be personified as the (moral) "daemon" speaking through those who see the flashes of insight from within. 

From a more critical perspective, though, our flashes of insight, however well grounded, are best regarded as akin to hypotheses. The point leads on into later pragmatisms. In any case, it does not strike me that Nature must be a tempest in order to provide Emersonian inspiration. In effect, all creative process is projected upon Nature as inspiration --however peaceful or dramatic it may appear.

H.G. Callaway

Dear Pierre Giuseppe,

this is a rather interesting point. Let me try to answer it in two different ways.

1. WHen I first arrived to the US, I was really amased and shocked by the proportions and sizes of spaces here. Europeans (from such tiny - middle sized  countries like Hungary) have a wholly different basic perception of space, and therefore they fing everything great over there. 

2. On the otherhand it is a typical European perception, I guess, to think of the US in terms of proportions and size. THis has much to do with the earlier talk of barbarism and civilisation. If you think about Emily DIckinson, I think her art is that of the microcosm, and still sublime on its own way. So thinks are not so easily generalisable.

(P.s. Flannery O'Connor was a great experience for me.)

Best,

Ferenc

Dear Ferenc, 

The factor of 'space', it seems to me, is not relevant to the issue. There are different perceptions. Hence, philosophers have designated American sublime as distinct from European sublime. Let us do some research and post incidental thoughts.

Sibaprasad

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Dutta & readers,

If I may give a brief impression, I would say that a sense for space does indeed belong to an "American sublime," though there is some reason to insist that it is the space provided in nature. I think of Thoreau's essay "Walking," for example --where walking eventually tends westward by preference. He expresses a sense of greater interest in walking to the west, though this be only westward in eastern Massachusetts. See the following on-line edition:

http://faculty.washington.edu/timbillo/Readings%20and%20documents/Wilderness/Thoreau%20Walking.pdf

I wish to speak a word for Nature, for absolute freedom and

wildness, as contrasted with a freedom and culture merely

civil--to regard man as an inhabitant, or a part and parcel of

Nature, rather than a member of society.

---End quotation

This is a pure romance of nature, in some contrast with later Emerson.

From my East coast perspective at least, I have the sense of a continent stretching westward. This is somewhat low-key perception, of openness or space to explore. Often when the European settlers came, first to the East coast, they would just keep going westward, and in contrast with Europe, people simply tend to move around much more. Attachment to a specific place does exist, of course, but even this is conditioned by the possibility of moving or of relation to elsewhere. It is generally possible to establish oneself or re-establish oneself in a new place; and there are many choices. This sense of free space to move in is an occasion of some recent felt discontent or unease, arising from the contrasting notion of "fly-over" America vs. a superiority of the coasts. It is a felt mistake, then to so limit the possibilities.

I recall once visiting in far western New York state, which has a western boarder on a river--with Canada on the western bank. This I experienced as strange or uncanny, in some sense, since the option of western movement or the felt presence of the western expanse was removed or diminished --interrupted. There is normally, then, this felt presence of a very large space to explore or in which to do something in the U.S. The pundits remove this at their peril.

I imagine that the Russians must often have some similar sense of the gigantic space of nature in the country. It is often remarked that the Russians never invaded western Europe, but why should they, if they are looking East?

H.G. Callaway

Dear Sibaprasad,

Let me with all my regards disagree with you. I never claimed that I researched on the specific topic,though the sublime is a key concept which I had oocasion to deal with in my research into Edmund BUrke, who in his youth wrote an influential piece on that notion. I rather tend to agree in this respect with H.G. and I find his analogy with Russia very important and telling. Let me also refer in this respect also to Australia.

Europe is very different in this respect.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Ferenc,

Interesting that you should relate the present thread to Burke on the sublime. I've also recently done some work on Burke and the politics of the Whig ascendancy. Burke's sense of the sublime relates to great, unseen powers or forces, and things which we do not and perhaps never will understand, and this seems to be closely connected with his anti-rationalist themes. I see similarities with Emerson, who also idealizes a great unseen power in Nature, though in a less conservative fashion. This has some relation to the contrasts, early and late, between British and American constitutionalism. 

In either case, however, a more thorough-going rationalism is avoided, and in Emerson, the universal ideal remains ever an aspiration, and never perfectly realized. There is always more to be expected, "continuous revelation," if you will. The states and American diversity take the place of the Whig gentry, resisting greater centralization of power. Burke resisted concentration of political power in the monarchy to preserve the Whig ascendancy and British constitutionalism. He would have preserved even French absolutism, or a tradition arising therefrom, in preference to overthrowing it all in a single great upheaval. In some contrast, Emerson supported the Union cause in the American Civil War. This was certainly the deadliest most disruptive war Americans ever fought, yet Emerson saw it as a fulfillment of America's founding ideals --or a punishment for the failure to fulfill them. His abolitionism became very prominent as the conflict approached. One can not imagine Emerson resisting this in the interest of preserving the customs, tradition and mores of the old South. Still, Emerson could sympathize with Burke's views of the French revolution, insofar as he though the British constitution closer to the universal ideal. 

Emerson like Burke is a "reformer" and a respecter of  human virtue and religious tradition, but I suppose Emerson the more radical reformer, more or less in the way that Emerson's nonconformity contrasts with Burke's Anglican latitudinalism. The process of interaction and development is sublime, deep and powerful--and not merely the deep opposing or pre-existing traditions, mores, forces and powers.

Can you say more about the Burkean sublime in contrast to the "American sublime"?

H.G. Callaway

Dear H.G: 

can I only answer, that I fully agree with you on these points?

Best,

Ferenc

Ok,

and what is a relation between patriotism and nationalism, in particular, what is an essensial difference , if any?

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Prykarpatski,

I suppose that for any given country there are constitutive elements of culture, mores and tradition, without which the country would not function effectively. I would think of a proper patriotism as including, at least, respect for and acceptance of such elements. "Patriotism" basically means love of country, and is usually a matter of public piety. It is based on the existing "habits of the heart" involved in the mores of the people and --as we hope-- how they typically govern themselves. The idea that any culture or mores and any tradition could work anywhere, or everywhere, seems to me to be a  political mistake. Patriotism is a minimal and common-sense attitude or sentiment in contrast to a political program or ideology. 

Nationalism, in contrast, is a kind of ideological stance or a political ideology, which says, not that our ways (as it happens) are good for us, but that our ways are objectively superior to any possible alternative in any circumstance. That is also a kind of political mistake. Nationalism typically draws upon patriotism, but goes beyond it to build a domineering system of thought. Nationalism or extreme nationalism often eventuates in xenophobia, cultural chauvinism and jingoism. 

Europe has had many a tragedy arise from its historic nationalisms, and I think Europe and the world in general are especially wary of European nationalisms. But there is no such aversion to European (or other) patriotisms. That is a basic reason for the E.U. --and for its present evolved configuration as a "community of nations."  The world is also aware that Russia has evoked a play upon ethic nationalism in the eastern Ukraine --chiefly to inhibit the further eastward expansion of the E.U., as I see the matter.  In any case, we, in NATO, accept the patriotism and self- government of the member countries. We are pledged to mutual defense. From this distance, in particular, I think that the E.U. member countries can and will best work out their fears and apprehensions regarding nationalisms on their own. I see patriotism as pluralistic and nationalisms as varieties of monism.

Lacking any official ethnic identity, we naturally emphasize integration. This I see as a matter of constitutive American political wisdom. This point perhaps helps bring me back more nearly on theme. But, if the U.S. is a nation extensively built on immigration and integration, if does not follow that we think everyone else should also arrange themselves in a similar fashion.

H.G. Callaway 

On the distinction of nationalism with patriotism, John Lukacs had a lot to say.

''One of his criticisms of American “conservatives”—he (John Lukacs) usually uses quotation marks—is that they often conflate patriotism with populist nationalism: “It may be enough to say that patriotism is defensive, while nationalism is aggressive; that patriotism means the love of a country, while nationalism is the cult of a people (and of the power of their state).”

This distinction helps explain why Lukacs understands Hitler to have been more dangerous than Stalin, why he is critical of the conservative hero Reagan, and why he became so close a friend, even a soul mate, to George Kennan. What Lukacs calls “the militarization of popular imagination” has led inexorably to the imperial presidency and massive growth of the state, even as liberal and socialist ideas are dying.''

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/john-lukacss-valediction/

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Brassard,

I'd tend to think that you are aiming toward a criticism of American "conservatives." It seems you'd like to conflate patriotism with "populist nationalism." You'll perhaps excuse my skepticism.

My impression is that some of our our leftward compatriots would like to simply conflate patriotism withe "populist nationalism," because that is what they require to justify their own anti-Americanism. They can't tolerate a genuine patriotism. They can't tolerate loyalty to American ideals. 

In my humble opinion, the extreme left absolutely requires an extreme right, in order to attempt to justify ignoring the moderate middle. Where not available, it attempts to manufacture an extreme, or create the impression of what it requires, in order to give some semblance of justification to its own extremism. It simply can't tolerate that anyone is lacking in extremism, as suited to its distorted purposes. The aim is simply destructive aggression.

What Lukacs, a Catholic conservative, may have to do with this, I do not know. I suspect a conflation of right and left, serving extremism.

Now, can we get back to the theme of this thread? Its something to do with the sublime as I recall. 

I think you do the actual theme here a considerable disservice.

H.G. Callaway

Dear H.G. Callaway,

What I posted is not my text but a quoted text.  The text seems to confirm the distinctions you made between patriotism and nationalism.  It is a critism of the conservatives by Lukacs and it is certainly not from a left point of view. My intension was not to enter a debate on left or conservative in america , a topic way above my head. As for the explanation of Lukacs's position, this text will do:

http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/print.aspx?article=767

Dear Friends, 

It seems we are going astray from the main topic. 

Sibaprasad

Dear Friends, 

It seems we are going astray from the main topic. 

Sibaprasad

It is the distance that the subject has from the cathartic or overwhealming experience that transmogrifies it into the sublime. It could therefore be argued that the current sublime is capitalism itself. Something so huge and unknowable that it in effect has replaced all those older experiences, (war at a distance, volcanic eruptions etc) as the new unfathomable raw nature of our collective experience.

Lilliana

How would you regard Edgar Allan Poe and HP Lovecraft? If you include Mary Shelley would you not consider Poe and Lovecraft not only among the sublime, but also showing little dissimilarity to "European" concepts of the sublime?

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Brassard,

I misread you. So let me try to make amends.

You wrote:

This distinction helps explain why Lukacs understands Hitler to have been more dangerous than Stalin, why he is critical of the conservative hero Reagan, and why he became so close a friend, even a soul mate, to George Kennan. What Lukacs calls “the militarization of popular imagination” has led inexorably to the imperial presidency and massive growth of the state, even as liberal and socialist ideas are dying.''

---End quotation

I agree here that nationalism is more dangerous than almost anything one might be inclined to put in its place. But that point should not persuade us from seeing the flaws of the alternatives. International militarism is a deadly sort of development as well, and something to be resisted. International alliances I see as needed, but needing to be defensive, and not poking around in other people's business and problems. I am also a critic of the "imperial Presidency," whether defended by the right or the left. But notice the connection of this to globalization.

I do not see any strong American interest, rightly conceived, in further rounds of free-trade pacts and further development of international trading relations at this time. On the contrary, my view of the matter is that international economic relations have expanded far beyond the facility of people and peoples to effectively deal with each other and manage their emerging conflicts. It is much easier for people to buy and sell to each other than it is for them to genuinely understand the people and cultures with which they have to deal. I have long thought that the world needs a pause.

The interests supporting globalization have also come to distort domestic politics in many ways. If there is a pervasive "militarization of the popular imagination," and I certainly see some of this, then it is certainly something to be resisted, within proper boundaries. My sense of the matter is that it is partly a matter of the mass media in their relation to economic interests favoring further globalization. Patriotism may indeed be easily conflated with nationalism, if one is chiefly concerned with reaching a maximal audience. There is often some similar "advertising," of "Madison Avenue" conception of issues and conflicts of policy positions which will drown out the needed detail and fineness of attention. Again, even books in philosophy are often graded, evaluated and distributed by reference to the largest possible mass market. 

I am familiar with John Lukacs, and I have quoted from his writings in my own work. However, I am still going to resist taking this thread any further off topic. If you have something more directly concerned with the sublime, then bring that in, svp.

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Barker,

You make an interesting comment:

It is the distance that the subject has from the cathartic or overwhelming experience that transmogrifies it into the sublime. It could therefore be argued that the current sublime is capitalism itself. Something so huge and unknowable that it in effect has replaced all those older experiences, (war at a distance, volcanic eruptions etc) as the new unfathomable raw nature of our collective experience.

---End quotation

Let us say, perhaps, that international trade, big business and big finance have become so pervasive that it amounts to a contending factor of the contemporary sublime or  a "new unfathomable raw nature of our collective experience." However, if the economic incentives were removed, and that certainly is a matter of policy and politics, then we expect that other contenders would emerge more clearly. To avoid more of the overtly political, on this thread, I would suggest exploring the other contenders.

H.G. Callaway

I am having trouble coming to grips with what is being discussed here.

I have never considered that there might be national characteristics influencing interpretation of the sublime, but inclusion of the Hudson valley school has made me pause (bear in mind I have little experience of them). I would have said majestic, naturalistic. romantic yes, but sublime?? Reviewing a few in the past few minutes, many suggest that Constable and Claude might also be included (which I don't think they should). Some of them certainly come close to the sublime, but do not quite crack it.

Garry's comment is interesting in his use of the term transmogrify. Something changes what might otherwise be a beautiful romantic scene into something else; something "awe-full". The view itself, the poem or story, the music (more commonly so than visual I think) triggers an emotional response (joy, horror, fear, whatever) somehow bypassing cognitive processing. Some might view the process as "touching the soul", others as fast channelling transmission from sensory cortex to amygdala to the sympathetic nervous system (breath catches, pulse races, pupils dilate...). What might affect some in this way might not similarly affect others.

There may well be the influence of past experience - someone who has stood on the edge of the Grand Canyon might view the Cheddar Gorge in the UK as a rather pretty ditch, for example. But how far would this have to extend within a population to create a collective difference.

If there were a difference between "American" and "European" takes on the sublime I can't see that this would be a National  (or "Continental", if you wish) characteristic of the population. So it would have to be an imposed artificial academic/scholastic view. If so, what are the two views, if they exist, where do they differ, and did Bloom provide sufficient evidence to justify his view that there is/was a difference?

It could be argued that the sublime represents a relationship to a particular type of ‘event’.  For instance in “The Sublime Is Now” the painter Barnett Newman introduces us to the notion of an ‘encounter’ with his paintings between the viewer and the material properties of the paintings.

I am suggesting that capitalism can be ‘encountered’ in the same way. Its material properties from stock markets to hedge funds, are for the majority of people something experienced from afar, as Burke would say as a “delightful terror” observed from a safe distance. Therefore in terms of national characteristics, the acceptance or non-acceptance of capitalism as the dominant modus operandi would be an essential difference. The plea to avoid politicising the discussion is difficult, as all experiences are to some extent determined by the social conditions of the day and these are always related to political constructs.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Rout,

Let me see if I can helpfully comment on the final paragraph of your note. You wrote:

If there were a difference between "American" and "European" takes on the sublime I can't see that this would be a National (or "Continental", if you wish) characteristic of the population. So it would have to be an imposed artificial academic/scholastic view. If so, what are the two views, if they exist, where do they differ, and did Bloom provide sufficient evidence to justify his view that there is/was a difference?

---End quotation

I think you are right, in your doubts on this question, to direct attention back to Bloom and his writings. That would be one way for you to go at the question. On the other hand, I think we have a prima facie case for a difference between the American and European sublime, sketched in from prior postings and responses. I have some doubts myself, however, to what degree the question can be convincingly answered where there may be some lack of relevant American and European experience. We have to do with a concept somewhat difficult to grasp, "the sublime." Subtle variations on it would seem to be even more difficult to grasp.

I do see differences, based partly on living in the U.S. and in Europe, back and forth over several decades. Again, I find the contrast of Emerson and Goethe a convincing example. However, I am not sure that I could convince someone of the differences where similar experience is lacking.

We need not seek any overall consensus here. It may be sufficient to merely enlighten ourselves on the differing views of the matter. There are, surely, cultural differences between Europe and America, and if they didn't show up in literature and in art, I think that would be something of a surprise. For now, I'd suggest seeing above, e.g., where I contrasted Emerson and Burke. 

H.G. Callaway

Buying a ticket for a billion dollar lottery is buying a hope in the modern sublime of money access to all that is glamorous in the media olympus.

Sorry, Pier Giuseppe! I didn't see you and Sibaprasad wanted copies of this essay collection. I can send it to Sibaprasad because he indicated his e-mail. The file is to heavy to upload here. Sibaprasad, my teaching assistant found a copy on the Internet. I will send it to your e-mail.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

I am making available here R.W. Emerson's essay "Art" from his 1870 book, Society and Solitude. You can access my annotated text at the following address:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8gUxwe2Vae5cHhTSmZua19oYnc/view?usp=sharing

The text and annotations are here re-edited from my 2008 edition of the book.

See:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Society-Solitude-Twelve-Chapters-Emerson/dp/0773451277/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

http://mellenpress.com/mellenpress.cfm?bookid=7363&pc=9

Society and Solitude was actually Emerson's most popular book of essays during his own life time, and it was composed in the period following the American Civil War of 1861-1865. However, it drew on earlier essays and the essay "Art" in particular is definitely earlier than the rest of the book.

The opening paragraphs are particularly interesting for present purposes, I believe. Notice his use of "sublime," in the opening:

All departments of life at the present day,—Trade, Politics, Letters, Science, or Religion,—seem to feel, and to labor to express, the identity of their law. They are rays of one sun; they translate each into a new language the sense of the other. They are sublime when seen as emanations of a Necessity contradistinguished from the vulgar Fate, by being instant and alive, and dissolving man, as well as his works, in its flowing beneficence. This influence is conspicuously visible in the principles and history of Art.

On one side in preliminary communication with absolute truth through thought and instinct, the human mind on the other side tends, by an equal necessity, to the publication and embodiment of its thought, modified and dwarfed by the impurity and untruth which, in all our experience, injure the individuality through which it passes. The child not only suffers, but cries; not only hungers, but eats. The man not only thinks, but speaks and acts. Every thought that arises in the mind, in its rising aims to pass out of the mind into act; just as every plant, in the moment of germination, struggles up to light. Thought is the seed of action; but action is as much its second form as thought is its first. It rises in thought, to the end that it may be uttered and acted. The more profound the thought, the more burdensome. Always in proportion to the depth of its sense does it knock importunately at the gates of the soul, to be spoken, to be done. What is in, will out. It struggles to the birth. Speech is a great pleasure, and action a great pleasure; they cannot be forborne.

---End quotation

Dear H.G., the fact that Bloom himself speaks in his book about the "daemoniacal", makes the "American" sublime a cross between the Burkian (the obscurity and inmensurability of the sublime) and the Kantian (the dynamism and the negativity implied in that "you know that you cannot know") sublimes, I think that Burke's book is rather normative, almost a checklist of sine qua non elements of the sublime. Kant picks up those elements and intertwines them in search of a more philosophical understanding of an experience centered on the subject and not on the sublime object. The "American" sublime is, for Bloom, also experiential and subject-centered, and that goes in tune of a more romantic approach, as we find in some works of Schiller on the sublime.

That said, I see Bloom talking about a later-day sublime or "neo-sublime", maybe post-romantic, maybe even "(neo)gothic" (as in Kosofsky-Sedgwick's excellent The Coherence of Gothic Conventions)... Gothic literature has always almost touched the sublime: Melmoth, The Monk, some scenes  by Ann Radcliffe, most of Frankenstein, Wuthering Heights even some parts of Wilkie Collins novels. In the United States Emerson comes in early in the 19th century talking about an animist nature with a life and a will of its own, imbued in mysteries from the Orient, etc., and embraces a joyful, almost ecstatic attitude towards such nature (his essay of the same title was published in 1836) that immediately connects with works like Wordsworth's and Shelley's.

I do not mind accepting that there is a Gothic penchant in American literature as bearer of the sublime —which I suggested in my original answer under this question when I mentioned a horror/SciFi sublime— but I do not find it especially different in form or literary intent from European 18th and 19-century examples. As it has been mentioned in this conversation, Europe does not have a Mont Blanc in its literature anymore, not after two world wars and a Holocaust. As Rousseau prophetically remarked in one of his Reveries d'un promeneur solitaire, there was no part of nature in Europe where humanity had not set its foot: nature had already lost its virginal state with industrialization. To Rousseau, that was like having lost all innocence, an idea that Schiller recaptured in his Naive and Sentimental Poetry where he praised humanity's naive and wholesome relationship with nature in earlier days (especially in archaic Greece). When that was lost, gothic nature began to manifest itself as a reluctant ally of humanity, even an outright avenging enemy wielding a violent indifference (extreme examples of this are the adventure film The Perfect Storm and the gothic film The Blair Witch Project). In this sense, the Kantian dynamic sublime and the Bloomian daemoniacal sublime meet half way. 

Literature changes with time, styles change, subjects change, settings change, characters change, but what have not changed are the structural, basic tenets of the sublime as proposed by Burke and fine-tuned by Kant. That is not bad. The works that Bloom studies are great literature, and their authors have done a great job adjusting the "normative" sublime to new situations, societies, preferences and issues.  It happened to Longinus. Almost 1,400 years after he wrote his Peri hypsous, a neo-sublime configured itself as inmensurable negativity of the subject-nature relationship, as it did again in Bloom's America with more or less the same issues. Thus, the sublime lives on! But call it "Neo".

Thank you all helping me to grapple with this topic. Please forgive my naivety, but I learnt long ago that I cannot learn without engaging.

Perhaps one of the problems I am having in coming to grips with the thread is that I can see no robust definition of The Sublime. For me generally it is an affective sensory experience (of nature or art) with no prior cognitive processing that provokes a visceral response. Often (but not always) there is a  combination of both attraction and repulsion presented by the stimulus, The response is invariably empathic. The response fades with the onset of cognition, beginning with recognition of the "safe distance" (not necessarily "from afar" - in a gallery it is as little as 1 to 2 metres, from a book much less, but the "distance" is not a measure but the process of separation of self from stimulus).

Such a personal definition creates difficulties with describing/classifying what causes such a response. While I may speak in terms of the types and forms of causes that might elicit the response, it is impossible to describe the types and forms (some as yet unencountered) that shall elicit the response in me, yet alone others. The response might be sought but never pursued.

As to consequences, this is even more difficult as they cannot proceed without the ensuing contemplation. The sight of Helen's "terrible" beauty atop the wall of Troy by the Greeks is based upon full knowledge of the consequences of her beauty.

Is there a broader definition that perhaps encompasses mine, or are we discussing something else entirely?

Chris

At its core the sublime is an attempt to explain an emotional state. It is of interest because it is when two often conflicting ‘feelings’ are conjoined. Pleasure and pain, or incomprehensibility and imaginative capacity. A mathematical concept may appear to set out a vast complex understanding of nature which is beyond my capability of visualising and yet in my imagination I feel I can grasp what is meant, the anxious thrill of hearing a nearby army in battle, perhaps conjoined with the feeling of relief that I am not the one who is being attacked. Perhaps in defining terms, you can sort out which area of the debate you want to research in depth.

Dear Garry and Christopher, you are both on target. It is not necessary to divide the experience of the sublime between Europe and the United States as Bloom proposes in his rather capricious book. Not only he repeats, in other words, the same experience that has been commented since Longinus wrote his treatise in the 3rd century AD, he is also leaving out the rest of the world (the sublime experience is presumably available to all humankind...). But it is Bloom's "tradition" to reduce the world to the US and Europe. What these philosophers —Longinus, Burke, Kant— have done is to explain what causes the sublime experience and what it is about. It is a complex experience. And all of them describe and analyze it in almost the same meticulous way. Here are some very schematic definitions of the sublime:

According to Longinus, the sublime is described as "loss of rationality, an alienation leading to identification with the creative process of the artist and a deep emotion mixed in pleasure and exaltation. A writer's goal is not so much to express empty feelings, but to arouse emotion in his audience. 'The Sublime leads the listeners not to persuasion, but to ecstasy: for what is wonderful always goes together with a sense of dismay, and prevails over what is only convincing or delightful, since persuasion, as a rule, is within everyone's grasp: whereas, the Sublime, giving to speech an invincible power and [an invincible] strength, rises above every listener'."  [My Longinus text is in Spanish, I quote wiki... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longinus_(literature) ]

Edmund Burke's definition goes along these two quotes of his: "terror is in all cases whatsoever . .  the ruling principle of the sublime." "The passion caused by the great and sublime in nature . . . is Astonishment; and astonishment is that state of the soul, in which all its motions are suspended, with some degree of horror. In this case the mind is so entirely filled with its object, that it cannot entertain any other." In my own words: the sublime is obscure, awesome, hard to discern, perceived as powerful enough to overwhelm us, its size and potency are hard to quantify, it's size and shape are hard to understand, and it can annihilate us with its mere presence. [I quote from my Penguin edition of A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful]

According to Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Judgment (his book on aesthetics), there are two types of sublime experience: the mathematical sublime occurs when we realize that we cannot envision the infinite magnitude of the world: "Just because there is in our imagination a striving to advance to the infinite, while in our reason there lies a claim to absolute totality, as to a real idea, the very inadequacy of our faculty for estimating the magnitude of the things in the sensible world awakens the feeling of a supersensible faculty in us.” Is like, in losing the measurement of the universe, we lose the ability to grasp it and thus recognize our limitations vis à vis the universe, our inability to understand. There is also the dynamic sublime: when we experience nature in all its force but, finding a safe place for us, we can admire such force while realizing that it can overcome us. In both Kantian experiences, human reason is fraught in the "negative" awareness of our severe limitations as to the infinite extension of the universe and its unstoppable force. The realization of our limitations helps us "overcome" or "survive" the experience. [I quote from my Cambridge edition of Kant's Critique of the Power of Judgment]

Harold Bloom does not have his own definition of the sublime. Instead, he quotes Thomas Wesikel's (†) definition rendered in his impressive book The Romantic Sublime. Studies in the Structure and Psychology of Transcendence (Johns Hopkins, 1986): "The essential claim of the sublime is that man can, in feeling and in speech, transcend the human. What, if anything, lies beyond the human—God or the gods, the daemon or Nature—is matter for great disagreement. What, if anything, defines the range of the human is scarcely less sure.” (Weiskel p. 3; Bloom, p. 15 of my epub edition). Then Bloom goes on to show how his 12 writers fit into a category much better studied by Weiskel, whose book I enjoyed extremely when I read it many years ago. It bears noting that Weiskel devised his definition along the lines of the European sublime and associated it specifically with European romanticism, not with an American romanticism. At any rate, Blooms deforms Weiskel's definition in using it to describe a sort of "dark heroism" that allow his chosen protagonists of US literary works to deal with exceptional situations or with the exceptional within the drabness of daily life. In his book, Bloom starts by saying that Weiskel was his student (he died very young) and then gives as definition of the sublime literally the first sentences of Weiskel's book, and then leaves Weiskel behind, though the ideas and concepts of the student were much more pertinent and intelligent than those of his teacher and are to be detected throughout Bloom's book....There are many many many great moments in Weiskel's book, for example: when recognizing, as Kant does, the paradoxical nature of the romantic sublime, he says: "The paradox, at least of the Romantic sublime, is: the daemonized [this word is used in Bloom's title] ego can speak again only through a displacement, a secondary, metonymical sublimation that diffuses the power of the ego and subverts its freedom [referring to Wordsworth's poetry]". For Weiskel, there is a metaphorical sublime, as well as a political, a natural, a metonymical, etc., sublime.

So I guess, Pier Giuseppe, that you have been reading Wieskel too. Carlyle's book on hero worship is also on your list of references for the political sublime, I guess...?

Well, enough! Sorry for the length of my answer, but you were right: definitions are essential to this conversation. Have a nice day!!! And sorry for the typos. I have to run or I'll be late for class. :-)

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Ramos-Collado & contributors,

It strikes me that your comments on Burke and the sublime are a good place to start--in order to see what may be involved in your extensive replies and comments. I would only reiterate, to begin here, that "the sublime" is sufficient vague that it may not be possible to convincingly come to any consensus view of the matter; and that is especially true, given the task of surveying subtle variations on the theme.

You wrote:

Edmund Burke's definition goes along these two quotes of his: "terror is in all cases whatsoever . . the ruling principle of the sublime." "The passion caused by the great and sublime in nature . . . is Astonishment; and astonishment is that state of the soul, in which all its motions are suspended, with some degree of horror. In this case the mind is so entirely filled with its object, that it cannot entertain any other." In my own words: the sublime is obscure, awesome, hard to discern, perceived as powerful enough to overwhelm us, its size and potency are hard to quantify, it's size and shape are hard to understand, and it can annihilate us with its mere presence. [I quote from my Penguin edition of A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful]

---End quotation,

Burke's "terror" and "astonishment" at the sublime, is noteworthy, where the motions of the soul "are suspended, with some degree of horror;" and "the mind is so entirely filled with its object, that it cannot entertain any other." This strikes me as an excellent quotation, and it seems obvious that we have to do here with a deep scholarly treatment --from the Penguin edition of Burke's Enquiry. Bravo!

To me, this passivity in the face of the sublime is remarkable. It speaks to Burke's conservatism, I believe. Regarding that, there are perhaps both positive and negative aspects. If Burke stands in passive awe before what we regard as positive and deserving of our respect or even veneration, then we will likely applaud his self-restraint. Burke is, of course, a great advocate of human virtue and of the historical British constitution--the "Glorious Revolution" and the Whig ascendancy of the 18th-century in particular.  Burke is coming to new attention, just now, in part because of the "republican" elements of  the Whig ascendancy, which he sought to preserve. But equally, Burke could stand in awe before the civilization of India, as evident in his role in the impeachment of Warren Hastings; the love of freedom in America; or the ancient Catholicism of Quebec or of his native Ireland. In many ways, he is quite the advocate of pluralism and liberty.

However, Burke's passivity in the face of sublime may also suggest something of Emerson's contrast between "the beautiful Necessity" and "vulgar Fate." This is itself a difficult topic, and one naturally relies on a close reading of Emerson's 1860 essay "Fate," published in The Conduct of Life. "Vulgar Fate" is precisely fearful passivity in the face of the powerful and partly unknown workings of the world: fatalism. From the American perspective--and one might look to the reaction of the American founders to Burke's criticism of the French Revolution (mostly negative)--, there was a bit too much acceptance or acquiescence in Europe's ancient monarchies and top-down structures of power. In consequence, I suppose, that where we do not accept the things Burke venerated, then the tendency will be to take a more critical approach to his treatment of the sublime, Burke's self-restraint begins to look like passive fatalism.Certainly, the American founders viewed the British constitution which Burke defended as a kind of "halfway house."

One may, of course, contrast Burke's views early and late, or his views on the American crisis with his views of the French revolution. But his work on the sublime is a fairly early work, and the related attitudes seem to run through his writings. The sublime seems to encompass all those things that evoked Burke's passivity and acquiescence.  For Emerson, in some contrast, "Trade, Politics, Letters, Science, or Religion," all partake of a sublime "beautiful Necessity" emanating through each individual.  Moreover, "by being instant and alive," it is "dissolving man, as well as his works, in its flowing beneficence."  How else, we might ask, could the puny American colonies take on the greatest empire the world had yet seen?

H.G. Callaway

Dear H.G., some participants in this conversation asked to have definitions of the sublime so they could better follow those who are conversant with the term. I thought it was a good idea to bring those definitions in. I stood up, walked to my library and took down my Longinus, my Boileau, my Addison, my Burke, my Kant, my Schiller, my Bloom and my Weiskel and sat down to write. I stated my sources because it is the professional way to deal with authors and with readers who might be interested in knowing what to read about the subject.  

I must say that I do not agree with the drift of your most recent post. The differences of personal character or political views between Burke (England) and Emerson (US) do not imply that there is an European sublime and a US sublime. I find that way too speculative. Nor do they detract from the value or pertinence of Burke's Enquiry or  Emerson's essays, or from their rightful place in the long tradition of works on the sublime. I may not agree with you, H.G., but I certainly enjoy this conversation. Thank you!

Best regards!

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Ramos-Collado,

On the contrary, it strikes me that if conceptions of the sublime have no social and political consequences and significance then we fail to distinguish any social-intellectual reality from mere literary speculations and elaborations of traditional themes. The definitions are all to the good. They have already proved helpful. Still, if you do not see a significant difference between Burke and Emerson on the sublime in my comments above, then I fail  to see what would count as a difference in your estimation. A genuine difference in thought, following Emerson, is one that could culminate in action. We see the significance of Burke on the sublime in his conservatism.

What I say about Burke and Emerson above is by no means an attempt to diminish the importance of the texts. You'll recall that I made a text from Emerson available, and I have no doubt that Emerson regarded Burke highly. Think of Emerson, in "Art" as reacting to Burke and others. He was a very learned scholar, as it happens, a figure of literature as well as philosophy and a man with considerable respect for moral-intellectual tradition--as reflected in his readings.

I do not see that your prior postings diminish the appeal of Bloom's thesis of a distinctive American sublime. We look forward to your detailed presentation of your case! So far, you seem to beg the question against Bloom, IMHO.

H.G. Callaway

Dear H G, 

Yours is a very good post.

Regards.

Sibaprasad Dutta

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

It appears that cogent argumentation is met with silence. That may suggest that the convictions expressed, contra Bloom,  are not based on presentation of evidence and argument. If so, that's unfortunate.

The simple (or forced) assimilation of American culture to European paradigms is not unheard of, of course. But it is only in exchanging views and supporting argumentation that people can genuinely learn from each other, while keeping clearly in view what is essential and integral. Going along with the crowd, or --what is too often equivalent--being overly impressed with positions or credentials simply won't do it.

Give recognition for accomplishments where due, by all means. But wait for the evidence and arguments before making any evaluation of themes and theses in question. People learn best in situations of mild or medium tension--we then attend--not relaxation and rest and not situations of great stress. But the tension is essential. Where cogent argument goes unanswered, there may well be a lesson to be learned. Unification of diverse perspectives best relies upon grounded conviction arising from discussion, discourse and inquiry.

H.G. Callaway

Dear H.G., as I said before, I see the differences between Burke and Emerson. What I do not see is the reason to infer from a single example (Burke vs. Emerson) that there is a US sublime different from an European sublime. On the other hand, political differences between these two writers need not significantly affect the definition of "the sublime". I am sure there are political differences between Longinus and Boileau, between Boileau and Addison, between Addison and Burke, between Burke and Kant and so forth, but the structure of the sublime as an aesthetic category is not necessarily affected by those differences: the relative stability of the definition throughout history speaks for itself, regardless of what you believe about the importance of political differences.

On the other hand, debate is tense usually because of disagreement. The world is diverse. It is forced "unification" that creates tension. People do not learn in situations of mild or medium tension because education is ill served if it is "mild" or "medium", even for children. There is no education without challenge. Humanity is infinitely diverse and impossible to reduce to a single viewpoint. That is why consensus (I am citing here Jean-Joseph Goux's Terror and Consensus. Vicissitudes of French Thought) can easily become a sort of terrorism because it eliminates the opinion of minorities that do not have enough bargaining power to participate in the negotiations that would lead to a consensus. In "consensus", the majority simply suffocates minority dissent. People have a right to dissent precisely because democracy depends on dissent and on the existence of a vocal minority. Consensus is, then, arguably anti-democratic. Interestingly, you are pushing me into the "minority corner" as you are treating me like a student who hasn't done her homework. I find it surprising that you are resorting to the old Aristotelian fallacy called "argumentum in personam" or "argument against the person": when someone can't prevail in an argument, he tells his rival "you are wrong because you are dumb", or "you are wrong because I cannot understand you",  or "you are wrong because you are a woman", that way demeaning your rival's argument. When this fallacy comes into play, it infallibly means that he who used this fallacy lost the argument. 

But I am very patient and also having lots of fun here. I am still waiting to read your argument in favor of Bloom's theory of a "vernacular sublime" (it might be too pompous to talk about an "American" sublime; there are so many countries in the Americas that also have important works that explore the sublime, like Chile, Brazil, Argentina, and so many countries that are not in Europe or in the Americas that are also familiar with the sublime: the sacred architecture of India and Egypt, Japanese martial arts, the Russian novel, Lebanon's sacred cedar forest, Hagia Sophia, Nepal's Mount Everest and Chile's Aconcagua, the Aurora Borealis...).

Take your time, H.G. Try to focus on Pier Giuseppe's question, which is an excellent point of debate. I know it is not easy to deal with Bloom's extravagances.  

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Ramos-Collado and contributors,

No argument against or "to the person" intended. Its is rather more like, "if the shoe fits, wear it." But now you reply! Doubts on having won your point?

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, we in the U.S. simply have no other adjective for ourselves, beyond "American."  This usage is quite old, and it dates from the colonial period. The British also called us Americans. See Burke on this point, if you have any doubts.  (But you would have to read beyond his work on the sublime.) Its rather a mouthful to say "I come from the United States of America," though that's the official name of the country. So its "American" for short.  

In this way, we contrast with others in the hemisphere, who may call themselves "Bolivians," or Mexicans," or "Canadians," etc. We have no objection, of course, if they also call themselves Americans, because living in the new world. It is just that linguistically, we have no alternative. Not having an alternative is not a claim for exclusive use of the word. But it is normally understood in context of usage. At home, we call ourselves Americans. Its a homey and familiar word. Why would anyone object to the word a people use for themselves? When we started with it, the other nations did not yet exist. It was "New Spain" or the Portuguese empire. Right? Or did they call themselves Americans, back then, too?

I think that in order to understand the usage of "American sublime" in contrast with Burke, say, one must understand the significance of the contrast with Burke, which you acknowledge. This difference is often ignored, willfully, on occasion, I summize, but often out of a lack of detailed knowledge and out of the tendency to project foreign patterns, even sometimes among long-term immigrants or residents. If people come here, and act in ways consistent with Burke's conception of the sublime, projecting anything similar as "terrible and frightful powers," half understood --so as to inspire their own awe and passivity, then some folks surely will be glad to meet their expectations. If you show a significant fear, then an animal encountered is more likely to act aggressively. So it is, too, with human beings sometimes. Passivity fatalism and acquiescence may inspire aggression generally, and so it is in America, too.

It is not just any political difference which is in question here. You object to the single example, but I counter that Emerson selects his words wisely, and he selected "sublime." He knows what he is talking about. How could you reasonably suppose otherwise?

Emerson injects an active principle just where Burke stands in passive awe. As a political or social difference, that is about as basic as you can get, and notice that this active principle serves democracy, just where Burke turns back to monarchy and hierarchy. (Breaking with Charles James Fox and the Whigs at the end of his career, Burke went over to George III and the Tories--in defense against Revolutionary France.) I notice that you do not reply to my argument from Emerson's emphasis on the transition from thought to action. Without translating the sense of the sublime into this matter of active life vs. passive acceptance, I do not think we even understand what "sublime" may mean. This is the social reality on which the different concepts rest, and Bloom is right to emphasize the distinctiveness. 

I think that many other examples are available, but you notice that I have drawn on what I know best. I am incidentally a scholar of literature, where it overlaps with philosophy and American intellectual history. If we want to see more, then I would think to draw on, say, Robert Frost, as I drew on Thoreau's "Walking." But generally,  American literature is full of Emersonians.

I do not strive for unification or consensus on such a vague topic. I have twice expressed my doubts that this is possible. I strive only against premature certainty  and false consensus.

H.G. Callaway

Dear Pier Giuseppe, the interesting thing about the sublime as an aesthetic category is, precisely, the coherence of its core elements throughout time. For example, you can have the "natural" sublime in an extremely high mountain range, like Hölderlin and Friedrich, on the seashore contemplating the vastness of the sea, like Addison, or in the middle of six-second 8.5 earthquake in Concepción, Chile, like Charles Darwin, or sitting through the last 15 seconds of the movie Thelma and Louise. Each is a different situation but is the same sense of awe that makes the subject feel frail and forsaken, small and crushable. The entire world witnessed the sublime when the Twin Towers in New York collapsed one after the other, even though we saw it on TV, as years before that, also on TV, we watched the Challenger shuttle explode many times as the world rotated to stage its 24 successive mornings and people all over the world woke up to the catastrophe. The TV record of the Gulf War had so many sublime moments I felt exhausted almost every day after I watched unidentifiable dark cities being lit by the explosion of bombs, exactly what I felt when reading the ancient descriptions of Nero's burning Rome. Different moments in history, different occasions, different spatial relations between the me as viewer vis à vis the event or thing. The awe we feel has to do with our genuine intuition that, because we were safe we could appreciate the devsatating image of the event, or the immense force or volume of the thing. Narratives may change style, as well as painting may develop new techniques, or events may determine unexpected relations of space and/or time vis à vis the event: the result always is a sense of dépaysement, and then, the sublime.

Maybe that's why Addison speaks of "the pleasures of the imagination" in the context of the sublime, because such awe makes us think about the frailty or smallness of humanity. Night, for Marguerite Yourcenar's Hadrian, is inscrutable, and therefore, sublime: its depth cannot be fathomed nor its limits determined. Dawn, in its infinite promise and unpredictability, is sublime for philosopher María Zambrano's war exiles after they flee their country during the Spanish Civil War. Sublime was the image of the fire that consumed a large part of the town of Guernica that Picasso saw on a photographs of the city destroyed by a German air attack. The France where Marguerite Yourcenar envisioned Hadrian's night was politically different from the political situation of Guernica, which was different from the political situation of the Gulf War. And the political situation of Rome when Nero torched the city had little in common with Chile's political situation when the earthquake destroyed Concepción during Darwin's scientific travels.

Throughout the centuries, the sublime has changed settings thousands of times, but people's recollections of it are incredibly similar. Probably, the sublime is treated as an aesthetic category because it forces us to reconstruct and reinterpret an event, to re-imagine our world, as Nelson Goodman explores in his Ways of Worldmaking. In "passively" witnessing the awesome event, we actively realize the negativity of our own incapacity to withstand it, our smallness before it. The sublime is an aesthetic response, not an ethical one. The sublime is not about being politically wrong or right, legal or illegal, but about bringing the detritus of our emotion and our imagination to the fore so other people can experience what we experienced. Because we survive the sublime we write, we paint, we sing, we compose, we think, whether in the Americas, in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, in the Poles, on the Sea, or in intergalactic Space.

Best regards!

Dear Pier Giuseppe, the interesting thing about the sublime as an aesthetic category is, precisely, the coherence of its core elements throughout time. For example, you can have the "natural" sublime in an extremely high mountain range, like Hölderlin and Friedrich, on the seashore contemplating the vastness of the sea, like Addison, or in the middle of six-second 8.5 earthquake in Concepción, Chile, like Charles Darwin, or sitting through the last 15 seconds of the movie Thelma and Louise. Each is a different situation but is the same sense of awe that makes the subject feel frail and forsaken, small and crushable. The entire world witnessed the sublime when the Twin Towers in New York collapsed one after the other, even though we saw it on TV, as years before that, also on TV, we watched the Challenger shuttle explode many times as the world rotated to stage its 24 successive mornings and people all over the world woke up to the catastrophe. The TV record of the Gulf War had so many sublime moments I felt exhausted almost every day after I watched unidentifiable dark cities being lit by the explosion of bombs, exactly what I felt when reading the ancient descriptions of Nero's burning Rome. Different moments in history, different occasions, different spatial relations between the me as viewer vis à vis the event or thing. The awe we feel has to do with our genuine intuition that, because we were safe we could appreciate the devsatating image of the event, or the immense force or volume of the thing. Narratives may change style, as well as painting may develop new techniques, or events may determine unexpected relations of space and/or time vis à vis the event: the result always is a sense of dépaysement, and then, the sublime.

Maybe that's why Addison speaks of "the pleasures of the imagination" in the context of the sublime, because such awe makes us think about the frailty or smallness of humanity. Night, for Marguerite Yourcenar's Hadrian, is inscrutable, and therefore, sublime: its depth cannot be fathomed nor its limits determined. Dawn, in its infinite promise and unpredictability, is sublime for philosopher María Zambrano's war exiles after they flee their country during the Spanish Civil War. Sublime was the image of the fire that consumed a large part of the town of Guernica that Picasso saw on a photographs of the city destroyed by a German air attack. The France where Marguerite Yourcenar envisioned Hadrian's night was politically different from the political situation of Guernica, which was different from the political situation of the Gulf War. And the political situation of Rome when Nero torched the city had little in common with Chile's political situation when the earthquake destroyed Concepción during Darwin's scientific travels.

Throughout the centuries, the sublime has changed settings thousands of times, but people's recollections of it are incredibly similar. Probably, the sublime is treated as an aesthetic category because it forces us to reconstruct and reinterpret an event, to re-imagine our world, as Nelson Goodman explores in his Ways of Worldmaking. In "passively" witnessing the awesome event, we actively realize the negativity of our own incapacity to withstand it, our smallness before it. The sublime is an aesthetic response, not an ethical one. The sublime is not about being politically wrong or right, legal or illegal, but about bringing the detritus of our emotion and our imagination to the fore so other people can experience what we experienced. Because we survive the sublime we write, we paint, we sing, we compose, we think, whether in the Americas, in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, in the Poles, on the Sea, or in intergalactic Space.

Best regards!

Dear Pier Giuseppe, I must say that your questions are sublime. You make me think, real hard. :-)

Lilliana, 

You have posted a nice reply. 

Sibaprasad

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Ramos-Collado,

I must say I enjoyed reading through your most recent short treatment of the topic. Bravo! I notice that you felt I merited no explicit mention or recognition in all that.

I would merely suggest, as a first point, that to conceive the active response in thought and action as sublime emanation is itself pre-ethical, though perhaps quasi-ethical. It changes focus from the awe-inspiring event to the response it calls forth and calls out. We look for the "flashes of light within," thus rejecting fate and fatalism and excessive reverence to unknown power to boot.This also eventually challenges the undue pride of those who merely adapt to prescribed circumstance. How else could aristocracy and monarchy of old be over thrown?

Those whom the gods would destroy they first make proud.

H.G. Callaway

Dear H.G., I have no idea of what you mean by "pre-ethical" or "quasi-ethical" or the pertinence of this language with regard to our topic: Bloom's American sublime vs. the rest of the world's sublime. In fact, Wittgenstein would advise you against the use of a private language that lacks a community view. And Witt would add, "Get a community, dear H.G. Crusoe!" 

I would love to know, besides, what exactly do you mean by my need of mentioning your merit [I guess you mean "your contribution"] in my last answer. Throughout this whole conversation you and I we were not talking about the same thing nor sharing the same point of view, ever. I stated my disagreement with you in very clear words and with very specific examples. That is why I addressed my last answer to dear Pier Giuseppe, not to you: he deserves the merit for his keen, pertinent question.

So, pay heed, H.G.: you are abut to be destroyed by the gods for seeking merit for the work done by others. Among academics and serious intellectuals, that is NEVER pre-ethical, post ethical or quasi-ethical, much less plain ethical. 

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Ramos-Collado,

You might consider thinking a bit about the concept of the pre-ethical, before condemning it out of hand. I would say basically, that its a matter of an orientation to thought and action. That might be thought of as methodological. Perhaps its even a bit Aristotelian. given a suitable emphasis on reason? How is Emersonian "reason" to encounter various awe-inspiring events or phenomena? Certainly, we are on the verge of the ethical, asking this question, but perhaps not yet over the boundary. 

It is not, dear colleague, that I stand in need of your recognition. But I though it remarkable that you turned away from my contribution, with such apparent self-insulation, in making your prior summary. Those who dissent from your wisdom are to be ignored, apparently? I find that a questionable attitude. You see no contribution which does not fold neatly into your own? You will excuse me, if with many others, I am somewhat skeptical of the cult of the manipulation of recognition for personal purposes. Its the sort of thing that turns the universities in on themselves and slowly strangles them in insider trading. I would hesitate to make or to invite such a judgment on anything I do. Recognition, I suppose, to be very useful, must be freely given.

As for "my community," I am living in it. I write from my home town. I belong to a constant intellectual swirl, here in town. It is presumptuous of you to suppose that  I am lacking for anything of significance in this respect. I doubt that you know the first thing about me.

I think you may mistake "community" for the trading of favoritism? Perhaps not, but in any case, my general inclination is to rest my case on the judgment of others, known or unknown. I think it best not to attempt to organize the response. I did contribute to the discussion, and I made several arguments. I cast some doubts on your unifying conclusions regarding the sublime, and I supported Bloom's thesis.

It is my conception of discourse, that people who take opposite sides of an argument  actual depend on each other--even for the sense of what they are doing. Insisting on this, you seem to find somehow lacking in the ethical. That's how the cookie crumbles on occasion.

H.G. Callaway

Amused And Confused - Poem by Ali Rahimi

This is the desert of scorching heat and sun,

Dryness, the fire inside, where is the fun?

Barren uncultivated land of silence and gun,

Beware! Slaughterhouse, carnage has begun,

Hey brother! Hey sister! Run! Run! Run!

We still blink, shriek, but we are all skinned,

There are different way to skin a man, mentally, emotionally nailed, slashed and pinned,

We pray, we shout, we moan and we wander,

In pain, thirst, harsh agony and hunger,

Vastness of the arid land, dust and disaster,

Destined to whims of the strong master,

Slave to the insatiable lust of the monster,

Doomed to the inescapable clasp of the monopolizer,

Fated to the lust of the unbreakable thick commander,

Who holds the loudspeaker? Who is in the helicopter?

Run, run, run, shout, follow, there is the carrot,

There is the stick, there's the whip, there's the sword,

Desperate losers at the hands of the looter,

Life in the wilderness, like a torture chamber,

All wearing blinkers, blinders, we are sinkers, not thinkers,

Take race horses galloping in the desert,

Look straight, walk straight, toe the line, sheep,

Follow the shepherd, it's deep, deep, deep,

Yes, absolute bondage, subliminal rape of our dreams,

They shag our brain cells, and we say thank you, master!

They screw our thoughts, and we smile in joy!

With the mantra of liberty, equity, fraternity,

Where is it? Where is the opportunity? Amused and confused

Amused and confused

Amused and confused

Amused and confused

We die, we get back and look puzzled,

The souls are still amused and confused,

In this mental emotional wilderness,

Psychological disorders and egotistical illness,

Fatigue, intellectual inertia, and aimlessness,

Perplexed souls in darkness, ignorance and madness,

Where is the torch? Where is the torch?

In the slaughterhouse? Or in the graveyard?

Or perhaps in the harem of the horny psychopath,

Lighting the orgasm of the evil over the nymph,

Or buried under the desert of our dreams, all repressed,

Wilderness of our ideas, all oppressed,

Cemetery of our hopes, all crushed,

Yes, the torch is buried, dig it out!

Amused and confused...

Amused And Confused - Poem by Ali Rahimi

This is the desert of scorching heat and sun,

Dryness, the fire inside, where is the fun?

Barren uncultivated land of silence and gun,

Beware! Slaughterhouse, carnage has begun,

Hey brother! Hey sister! Run! Run! Run!

We still blink, shriek, but we are all skinned,

There are different way to skin a man, mentally, emotionally nailed, slashed and pinned,

We pray, we shout, we moan and we wander,

In pain, thirst, harsh agony and hunger,

Vastness of the arid land, dust and disaster,

Destined to whims of the strong master,

Slave to the insatiable lust of the monster,

Doomed to the inescapable clasp of the monopolizer,

Fated to the lust of the unbreakable thick commander,

Who holds the loudspeaker? Who is in the helicopter?

Run, run, run, shout, follow, there is the carrot,

There is the stick, there's the whip, there's the sword,

Desperate losers at the hands of the looter,

Life in the wilderness, like a torture chamber,

All wearing blinkers, blinders, we are sinkers, not thinkers,

Take race horses galloping in the desert,

Look straight, walk straight, toe the line, sheep,

Follow the shepherd, it's deep, deep, deep,

Yes, absolute bondage, subliminal rape of our dreams,

They shag our brain cells, and we say thank you, master!

They screw our thoughts, and we smile in joy!

With the mantra of liberty, equity, fraternity,

Where is it? Where is the opportunity? Amused and confused

Amused and confused

Amused and confused

Amused and confused

We die, we get back and look puzzled,

The souls are still amused and confused,

In this mental emotional wilderness,

Psychological disorders and egotistical illness,

Fatigue, intellectual inertia, and aimlessness,

Perplexed souls in darkness, ignorance and madness,

Where is the torch? Where is the torch?

In the slaughterhouse? Or in the graveyard?

Or perhaps in the harem of the horny psychopath,

Lighting the orgasm of the evil over the nymph,

Or buried under the desert of our dreams, all repressed,

Wilderness of our ideas, all oppressed,

Cemetery of our hopes, all crushed,

Yes, the torch is buried, dig it out!

Amused and confused...

hello friends , I just thought these reflections could be relevant, forgive me if not, just a personal feeling :

Amused And Confused - Poem by Ali Rahimi

This is the desert of scorching heat and sun,

Dryness, the fire inside, where is the fun?

Barren uncultivated land of silence and gun,

Beware! Slaughterhouse, carnage has begun,

Hey brother! Hey sister! Run! Run! Run!

We still blink, shriek, but we are all skinned,

There are different way to skin a man, mentally, emotionally nailed, slashed and pinned,

We pray, we shout, we moan and we wander,

In pain, thirst, harsh agony and hunger,

Vastness of the arid land, dust and disaster,

Destined to whims of the strong master,

Slave to the insatiable lust of the monster,

Doomed to the inescapable clasp of the monopolizer,

Fated to the lust of the unbreakable thick commander,

Who holds the loudspeaker? Who is in the helicopter?

Run, run, run, shout, follow, there is the carrot,

There is the stick, there's the whip, there's the sword,

Desperate losers at the hands of the looter,

Life in the wilderness, like a torture chamber,

All wearing blinkers, blinders, we are sinkers, not thinkers,

Take race horses galloping in the desert,

Look straight, walk straight, toe the line, sheep,

Follow the shepherd, it's deep, deep, deep,

Yes, absolute bondage, subliminal rape of our dreams,

They shag our brain cells, and we say thank you, master!

They screw our thoughts, and we smile in joy!

With the mantra of liberty, equity, fraternity,

Where is it? Where is the opportunity? Amused and confused

Amused and confused

Amused and confused

Amused and confused

We die, we get back and look puzzled,

The souls are still amused and confused,

In this mental emotional wilderness,

Psychological disorders and egotistical illness,

Fatigue, intellectual inertia, and aimlessness,

Perplexed souls in darkness, ignorance and madness,

Where is the torch? Where is the torch?

In the slaughterhouse? Or in the graveyard?

Or perhaps in the harem of the horny psychopath,

Lighting the orgasm of the evil over the nymph,

Or buried under the desert of our dreams, all repressed,

Wilderness of our ideas, all oppressed,

Cemetery of our hopes, all crushed,

Yes, the torch is buried, dig it out!

Amused and confused...

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

A favorite of mine:

The Road Not Taken

by Robert Frost (from the Poetry Foundation)

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood

And looked down one as far as I could

To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,

And having perhaps the better claim,

Because it was grassy and wanted wear;

Though as for that the passing there

Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay

In leaves no step had trodden black.

Oh, I kept the first for another day!

Yet knowing how way leads on to way,

I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

***

Wow and wow , this is  fabulous , Prof.  Callaway , thanks for sharing. 

I would like to support HG in his assertion that the sublime experience can be a pre-ethical event, and it is in the area of consequences. My simplistic thinking is that whether one makes a decision to change one's life or not following any insight associated with the sublime, it would of necessity involve an ethical decision. Does this make sense?

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

Another short poem by Robert Frost:

Nothing Gold Can Stay

Nature's first green is gold,

Her hardest hue to hold.

Her early leaf's a flower;

But only so an hour.

Then leaf subsides to leaf,

So Eden sank to grief,

So dawn goes down to day

Nothing gold can stay.

***

H.G. Callaway

The Black Swan Is Hovering Over Us -                 On GOLD 

When the black swan arrives, 

When the train leaves the station, 

And it already has, people, you and I, 

We can hear the coming, the coming: clicker clicker…cli cliii.

Black swan comes of nothing, 

Out of ignorance, oblivion, recklessness, inertia, 

Remember J.F. Kennedy assassination? , 

The black swan is hovering over us, 

All wars have been fought over gold, 

2008 global financial crisis, 

MH37 Malaysian airline went out missing, 

Island Diego Garcia American navy base controlled by economic devices? 

The black swan is hovering over us, 

9/11, two planes crashed into two towers, 

The third one collapsed, not hit by any planes, 

They still haven’t found the gold, 

It vanished, where the heck is it now? 

The black swan is hovering over us all 

Syrian Crisis, Cyprus, Portugal, Italy, Greece, 

If you open the eyes of one person, you have done the job, 

The world is the country, you are my brother, my sister, 

It’s time to wake up, wake up brother, sister, 

I fear nothing, fear nothing whatsoever, I ruin fear, 

Grab fright by throat, butcher terror, stab it right in the heart, 

Rub its nose in the mud, 

Yes, fear is the opposite of faith, 

Faith is the unseen, the substance of what you hope for, 

The black swan is hovering over us, 

I put a torch in your hand, you put a torch in her hand, 

Light will come, light, light, inspiration and hope, 

Criminals who have suppressed Asia, Africa 

Shall die a slow lingering painful death, 

The black swan is hovering over us, 

The tower of Babel, Apartheid, 

The system of state-enforced racial segregation, 

Crimea and Ukraine, Putin and Arseny Yatseniuk, 

The Rise and Fall of Viktor Yanukovych, 

The black swan is hovering over us, 

Nuclear proliferation under international law? ! 

Mass genocide, ethnic cleansing and hunger on valentines day? ! ! , 

Political racial repression under Olympics in Russia? ! ! , 

Banning twitter in Turkey? ! ! 

Start with nothing and end with nothing, 

Such is the logic of our birth, 

Tough times never last, tough people do, 

Unite, the world unite! 

The black swan is hovering over us, 

The Holocaust, Hiroshima, the Crusade, 

Stalin running amok, Fallujah and the resurgence of Al Qaeda in Iraq, 

Earthquake and tsunami devastating the Fukushima, 

Gender based violence and rape in India, 

The black swan is hovering over us, 

The Chinese famine, American civil war, 

George W. Bush, Saddam, The destruction of Pompeii, 

The fall of Constantinople, 

Hearken, listen, beware! 

The black swan is hovering over us, 

Hey you! standing out there wearing that uniform! 

History repeats itself, 

History has a bizarre uncanny crafty nature of cruelly repeating itself, 

and you’ll die a pathetic disgraceful death, 

at the hands of those holding the torch of wisdom and insight, 

Holding the torch, the torch, the torch, 

The black swan is hovering over us. 

Ali Rahimi

Philadelphia, PA

Dear readers,

Consider the following quotation from R.W. Emerson "Fate" 1860:

And, now and then, an amiable parson, like Jung Stilling, or Robert Huntington, believes in a pistareen-Providence, which, whenever the good man wants a dinner, makes that somebody shall knock at his door, and leave a half-dollar. But Nature is no sentimentalist, — does not cosset or pamper us. We must see that the world is rough and surly, and will not mind drowning a man or a woman; but swallows your ship like a grain of dust. The cold, inconsiderate of persons, tingles your blood, benumbs your feet, freezes a man like an apple. The diseases, the elements, fortune, gravity, lightning, respect no persons. The way of Providence is a little rude. The habit of snake and spider, the snap of the tiger and other leapers and bloody jumpers, the crackle of the bones of his prey in the coil of the anaconda, — these are in the system, and our habits are like theirs. You have just dined, and, however scrupulously the slaughter-house is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity, — expensive races, — race living at the expense of race. The planet is liable to shocks from comets, perturbations from planets, rendings from earthquake and volcano, alterations of climate, precessions of equinoxes. Rivers dry up by opening of the forest. The sea changes its bed. Towns and counties fall into it. At Lisbon, an earthquake killed men like flies. At Naples, three years ago, ten thousand persons were crushed in a few minutes. The scurvy at sea; the sword of the climate in the west of Africa, at Cayenne, at Panama, at New Orleans, cut off men like a massacre. Our western prairie shakes with fever and ague. The cholera, the small-pox, have proved as mortal to some tribes, as a frost to the crickets, which, having filled the summer with noise, are silenced by a fall of the temperature of one night. Without uncovering what does not concern us, or counting how many species of parasites hang on a bombyx; or groping after intestinal parasites, or infusory biters, or the obscurities of alternate generation; — the forms of the shark, the labrus, the jaw of the sea-wolf paved with crushing teeth, the weapons of the grampus, and other warriors hidden in the sea, — are hints of ferocity in the interiors of nature. Let us not deny it up and down. Providence has a wild, rough, incalculable road to its end, and it is of no use to try to whitewash its huge, mixed instrumentalities, or to dress up that terrific benefactor in a clean shirt and white neckcloth of a student in divinity.

---End quotation

The question raised here is, in fact, a version of the ancient "problem of evil." "Providence has a wild, rough, incalculable road to its end, and it is of no use to try to whitewash its huge, mixed instrumentalities, or to dress up that terrific benefactor in a clean shirt and white neckcloth of a student in divinity." Certainly, we will never eliminate all the evils of the world. Still, we can say, well, "there it goes again, what can we do to improve the situation? This is the attitude of the meliorist. No submission to unfathomed powers here, but a clear eyed tangling with problems and difficulties. You ask, How can this be ameliorated? From the perspective of the meliorist, the one great "problem of evil" breaks down in to many smaller problems of evils.

H.G. Callaway

    William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)     

 THE SECOND COMING (1919)

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre

    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst

    Are full of passionate intensity.

    Surely some revelation is at hand;

    Surely the Second Coming is at hand.

    The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out

    When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi

    Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;

    A shape with lion body and the head of a man,

    A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,

    Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it

    Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

    The darkness drops again but now I know

    That twenty centuries of stony sleep

    Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,

    And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,

    Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Philadelphia, PA

Dear readers,

1919, indeed. Might it have been a case of excessive submission to dark nationalist competitions? No doubt, history is full of tragedies. How best to avoid them?

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear readers,

Another little quotation from Emerson"s "Fate" (1860). It is not, of course, that I think Emerson holds all the answers here, but he's got the basics.

---Emerson wrote---

Steam was, till the other day, the devil which we dreaded. Every pot made by any human potter or brazier had a hole in its cover, to let off the enemy, lest he should lift pot and roof, and carry the house away. But the Marquis of Worcester, Watt, and Fulton bethought themselves, that, where was power, was not devil, but was God; that it must be availed of, and not by any means let off and wasted. Could he lift pots and roofs and houses so handily? he was the workman they were in search of. He could be used to lift away, chain, and compel other devils, far more reluctant and dangerous, namely, cubic miles of earth, mountains, weight or resistance of water, machinery, and the labors of all men in the world; and time he shall lengthen, and shorten space.

It has not fared much otherwise with higher kinds of steam. The opinion of the million was the terror of the world, and it was attempted, either to dissipate it, by amusing nations, or to pile it over with strata of society, — a layer of soldiers; over that, a layer of lords; and a king on the top; with clamps and hoops of castles, garrisons, and police. But, sometimes, the religious principle would get in, and burst the hoops, and rive every mountain laid on top of it. The Fultons and Watts of politics, believing in unity, saw that it was a power, and, by satisfying it, (as justice satisfies everybody,) through a different disposition of society, — grouping it on a level, instead of piling it into a mountain, — they have contrived to make of his terror the most harmless and energetic form of a State.

Very odious, I confess, are the lessons of Fate. Who likes to have a dapper phrenologist pronouncing on his fortunes? Who likes to believe that he has hidden in his skull, spine, and pelvis, all the vices of a Saxon or Celtic race, which will be sure to pull him down, — with what grandeur of hope and resolve he is fired, — into a selfish, huckstering, servile, dodging animal?

---end quotation---

Emerson provides an image here of how democratic society, 'grouped on a level," rids us the need for submission to a sublime, unfathomable, inescapable social-political hierarchy to which we must stand in silent, passive awe --so that there should be any order or genuine authority. The genuine sublime is, instead, the moving principle in us. Accepting it, we convert and overcome domination by "fate." 

H.G. Callaway 

Distance

What is the meaning of life?

Why do we feel such an aimlessness, emptiness?

Kids go to ISIS, DAESH, escape their families,

Feel like social misfits, eccentric mavericks,

Disconnected with boring social harmony,

Tired of materialism, conventions, norms and legality,

Bored with parental alienation, suffer attachment disorders,

Emptiness, loneliness, the outcome is dysfunctional families, social rejection,

Spanish civil War, Second World War, collective alienation,

Crusades and witch-hunt,

Soldiers feel alienated, self-sacrifice for common good, to de-alienate,

They deny their own interests, seeking out ideal satisfaction,

Our lives are full of spiritual voids, manifested as

Mental alienation, political alienation, social alienation, ideological alienation,

No integration, no common values,

Distance, Distance, Distance

All we see is isolation, powerlessness, normlessness, meaninglessness,

Self-estrangement, mental disturbances,

States have rendered man alien to himself,

They lose themselves in struggle for survival,

Losing the real existence in search of subsistence,

Food, water, clothes, shelter,

Or just bread and butter,

This is no true happiness, only illusory happiness,

Man is riddled with angst, despair, suffers form anxiety and apathy,

These are the consequences of modernity,

Hell is other people, hell is the other people,

A masochist human desire to limit perception of others,

Conflicts between conscious and subconscious minds,

Cut off from God, the faithful,

Or a metaphysical sense of contemplation, concentration and union,

With self, with nature,

A lot of you hate the norms society does not care for,

Have you got a tendency to adopt a compromise?

Do you feel maladjusted? Discarded?

Are you in quest of Utopia, Dream World, the Cure-all?

If you are alienated, you are easy to be indoctrinated,

You are vulnerable, susceptible to all nasty propaganda,

They give you the cause, the incentive, the aim you are thirsty for,

And you go for it, jump at the opportunity,

Come join us! Belong to the brotherhood, belong to Fraternity,

Welcome to the Riot Club, welcome to the Cult,

Difficult to conform to the norm?

But they are exciting, amazingly adventurous,

They are not hazy, clear are their rules, so you need to fit in,

Happily grasping the spiritual self-worth,

Material gain, sex, power, attention, instant gratification,

You can release the pent-up emotions, emit the repressed feelings,

General public does not give a damn,

Distance, Distance, Distance,

Politicians churn out lies and bullshit,

The mass guzzles them happily,

Post-modern information overload, data tsunami,

You are segregated from mainstream powerful society,

You don't belong, you don't belong, you are excluded,

Cold war, and migrants from Eastern Europe,

Incompatible values and beliefs, unfulfilled expectations,

Self-estrangement, you become a stranger to yourself,

Manifestation of Hamlet, Achilles in the Iliad, Brave New World,

The Catcher in the Rye, The Stranger, Waiting for Godot,

The wasteland, yes wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait,

We are all Vladimir and Estragon,

Waiting in vain at the leafless tree,

Begging for chicken bones or money,

Or lucky to have no expectations,

We are inert, sluggish and restless,

We are forgetful, grateful, and hopeful,

A mass suffering from Alzheimer's disease, collective oblivion, mental anguish,

The ruling oligarchs keep us passive and ignorant,

Futility of human existence, man waiting for salvation, salvation, salvation,

We are players in the theater of the absurd,

Distance, Distance, Distance

Ali Rahimi

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

Here's an interesting quotation which may help sharpen the focus on this thread:

I've selected a comment regarding Bloom's “American sublime;” A favorite book that helped shape “the American Sublime,” according to Bloom.

Leaves of Grass and Other Writings by Walt Whitman (Norton, $22). Whitman's poetry defines what is American and not European in our national literary tradition. Its originality and humane stance have a healing function, which is what he so deeply desired. Whitman was more than our greatest poet. I would go so far as to nominate him as Abraham Lincoln's only rival for greatest American.

See:

http://theweek.com/articles/554901/harold-blooms-6-favorite-books-that-helped-shape-american-sublime

Just last night, as it happens, I was involved in a lively discussion partly devoted to Walt Whitman. Whitman certainly seem highly relevant here, and clearly, Bloom thinks he is highly relevant to the "American sublime."

A related question, oft debated, is whether the U.S. is a "European" country. (Compare: Is Turkey a European country?) I tend to answer "No," regarding the U.S. after long experience on both sides of the great pond. (I will leave the question regarding Turkey to others.) But, if the U.S. is a "European" country, then I tend to think it is northern European in Winter, but more like southern Europe in Summer.

Comments (on Whitman) invited.

H.G. Callaway

Dear H.G. Callaway,

I am a Quebecois and french canadian and in many respect share things with you and the mexican and other south american that european can't but in other ways I feel more closer to the French, Hispanic and portugese americans than with your Anglo saxon culture and the reason are our different European roots which our language and way to be with each other carries on.  We are less industrialist and capitalist althoug all our elite try their best to become.  But we should also credit the influences on each of us of the local native cultures which are different and similar in many respects. And we should also credit the culture of all these african slaves which has contributed so much especially in music and dance about what is the difference between americans and europeans. And I was forgetting another important source of difference: the Nature , large and still wild in many respects which has fashioned us as americans.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Brassard,

It strikes me that you are a bit off topic here. I think you have to keep in mind, in the first place, that there are very significant political and constitutional differences between the U.S. and Canada. We have no official, ethnically defined sub-polities, as with Quebec.

You wrote:

I am a Quebecois and french Canadian and in many respect share things with you and the Mexican and other south American that European can't but in other ways I feel more closer to the French, Hispanic and Portuguese Americans than with your Anglo-Saxon culture and the reason are our different European roots which our language and way to be with each other carries on.

---End quotation

First off, then, its your perfect right to feel different--in all pluralistic reasonableness. But keep in mind, too, that many American citizens also have non-Anglo-Saxon backgrounds, or partly so--myself included. No one needs to be of British background to count as American and we have as many and diverse European and non-European roots as anyone in the Western hemisphere. "American" is a non-ethic nationality, I'd say; its not ethnicity that make one American or not.  Now, as I suspect we agree on these points, would you care to clarify your approach to the "American sublime?"

Few in the world have a better neighbor than the U.S. has in Canada!

You continue:

We are less industrialist and capitalist although all our elite try their best to become. But we should also credit the influences on each of us of the local native cultures which are different and similar in many respects. And we should also credit the culture of all these African slaves which has contributed so much especially in music and dance about what is the difference between Americans and Europeans.

---End quotation

Your concern with "crediting" here has some importance. I would say, generally, though, that the major mistake of contemporary American conservatives is to place too much emphasis on big business and big finance. (In degree our present problems are, as I've said before a matter of "Wall Street vs. Main Street.") No country can sensibly organize itself in purely economic terms.

Apart from the problems of "bigness," business and enterprise are an important agency of integration, and I would like to see more along those lines, "up from the bottom."  Given the size and diversity of the country, we don't typically have the basic political competence or unity required for more purely political solutions to our outstanding problems. So we have a mixed system, which sometimes gets out of wack.

The point of crediting and recognizing the many contributions to American society and civilization is basically to facilitate our own integration in the state and in the country. I would particularly emphasize black American focus on freedom and its relationship to self-development. We are grateful to M.L. King and many others for this and related developments. This contributes to the realization of American ideals dating from the colonial period and the early republic.

Regarding the native Americans, I think you have to realize that the Canadian pattern follows the general, traditional lines of British colonialism--which wanted to organize and separate native Americans from the rest of the population--chiefly in alliance with colonial aims on the continent. (We had this little thing called the "American Revolution" down here, you'll recall.) My own view is that we should give up the reservation system altogether and look instead to the integration of native Americans (where they are not already integrated) into the general population. This is no doubt a somewhat controversial view. But there it is. I think they will do better not trying to go it alone. This is surely a distinct topic.

Now, what of the "American sublime?" I am going to resist going too far off topic. 

H.G. Callaway

Dear H.G. Callaway,

My last post was a response to the last paragraph of your post 

''A related question, oft debated, is whether the U.S. is a "European" ''

It may be indirectly related to the difference of the american sublime vs european one via the question of identity.  So my post was on this question of identity of all americans.

In some place I used ''you'' meaning ''americans'' and sometime I used ''you'' to designate you particularly and it is why I said of anglo-saxon background.  But the anglo-saxon culture is the founding culture, the culture the wrote the american constitution, the culture of those that fashion the politic and the industry of your country although effectively ethnically the individual were coming from many different etnic and cultural background but the melting pot was not multi-cultural is was anglo-saxon and the constitution values which still is forging american culture is a very specific mind set. 

''egarding the native Americans, I think you have to realize that the Canadian pattern follows the general, traditional lines of British colonialism''

The relationship with the native canadians took on this very dramatic turn towards their  depossession, elimination and reservation in canada only around the 19th century when the railroad were constructed.  Before that time, for the first french canadians, the main economy which was centered on peltry export to europe depend entirely of our relationship with a number of first nations as the suppliers of the peltry.  French canadians were the carriers of the peltry and the merchants of Montreal which became Scotish merchants after 1760 were the exporters and supplier of all the goods which French canadian would carry.  All of that cooperation changed with the collapse of that economy and the new beginning of the new economical phase were not only they were not needed but a major obstacle and so the clearing of the prairies began.  French canadian population were on the side of their metis (Louis Riel) brothers but our elites did not give a dam. Previous to the conquest we were allied with all the natives on your western frontier against the american colonists but we were vastly outnumbered and were living into a backward type of economy and relation with nature.

I thank the ''American Revolution'' for the survival of the French culture in Canada, without it we would have quickly assimilate in the vast anglo-saxon culture.  Very strange change of situation where our mother land change alliance and back you against the British and we created an alliance with our British against you.  Our two father land turn against us.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Brassard,

Thanks for your various kind remarks, above.

I take it that "Anglo-Saxon," used to describe American civilization is not an ethnic designation, but instead a kind of regime of law and economy. Its what the English-speaking world mostly has in common and not a claim for ethnic privilege or predominance. If American life were a demand for assimilation to an ethnic paradigm, then we'd all be British or English here, which we are not. China, say, could become "Anglo-Saxon" in this sense, by restructuring its economy and law --though it likely won't, I suppose.

"Anglo-Saxon," in the sense you are using it, contrasts with "Scandinavian" or with "continental European," and with "command economy," e.g., and not with "French" "German" or "Russian." 

Perhaps there is a WASP establishment in Canada, but not here in the U.S. The continual repetition of the myth (locally) in fact serves political purposes though, sometimes even political persecutions.

"Us vs. them" politics typically and continually exploits scapegoats, and often won't work without doing so. It requires vague stereotypes and projection of its own demons onto the world around in order to keep its own unruly tribes in some semblance of "effective" unanimity. What this chiefly means is that people cemented into groups, all aggression directed outward, are often useful to unscrupulous politicians.

I take it that the predominant, historical American ideals function to discourage such things. E pluribus unum. No one is perfect, of course. Think of "Liberty" as the negation of any legal requirement to conform to in-group expectations. If you don't like what your background reference group is doing, then you can go around the corner and find other people who do things differently.

Consider Copeland's "Fanfare for the Common man" --a good representation of the American sublime, I take it. 

H.G. Callaway

Dear H.G. Callaway,

I am not going to teach you what it is to be an american. My knowledge is far form being nuanced as yours and even my used of words when expressing my views is not nuanced and lead you on wrong direction about what I think.  I agree with you that being an american is not an ethnic notion as I agree with all what you said in your last post and so realize that since you felt the need to say it is because you sensed that I was opposed to some of them.  But the fault is mine since I induced you to think they were mine.,  Having an identity involve defining an ''us vs them'' but it does not need to be ''us against them'' or ''us totally unlike them'' or ''us better then them''; it can be ''us like them''  even if we can look in history where at time  we find ''us against them''.  

Regards  

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Brassard,

Thanks for your additional comment. I am of course wary of "them against us," but I do not know I would attribute this specifically to anything you wrote on this thread. It is instead a matter of experience in relation to the topics suggested more generally.

My aim here is to get back to the topic at hand, if there is, indeed, any further interest for it. We have the near constant experience here of meeting up with immigrants doing very well and who have managed to escape the "us vs. them" of some foreign land. Yet the same patterns reappear from time to time. My comments are partly directed to the related historical facts.

 H.G. Callaway

Dear H.G. Callaway,

My first post on topic.

I have read the introduction of this book:

Robinson Jeffers and the American Sublime

By Robert Zaller

''Is thee, though, a distinctively American subspecies ? We do not think of Wordsworth and Turner as representing an ‘English’ sublime, or of Goethe and Friedrinch a ‘German’ one.  Neither the nationality of the artist nor the particular topos described seems to require a nativist prefix.  Whyt, then, in the American case?''

Then Zaller provide a list of American specifities which gave rise to all kind of specific American sublimes.

Regards

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Brassard & readers,

It looks like this question has already been answered. We are not hearing from the critics of the distinction.

I think its not so much a "nativist" as a constitutional matter, it reflects how the country is literally "constituted," composed or put together. 

I imagine there may still be resistance to the distinction, but I sense this is based on some failure to understand what is involved. The thought may be, sometimes, that we'd do better with a more European conception; but I think this is just not so.

Its a question of policy and politics. I'd go back to the Emerson quotation which I used above:

The opinion of the million was the terror of the world, and it was attempted, either to dissipate it, by amusing nations, or to pile it over with strata of society, — a layer of soldiers; over that, a layer of lords; and a king on the top; with clamps and hoops of castles, garrisons, and police.

---End quotation

Similar things, perhaps more typical of Cold War configurations, and the "snooper" culture subsequent to the Cold War, tend to make the country excessively aggressive and conflict prone. It becomes a danger to itself and to the rest of the world. Far better: a "fanfare for the common man."

H.G. Callaway

Dear Louis I am still battling for clarity. I have no access to the text by Zaller. Would you provide the list of American specificities (subheading form, if you wish) that he compiled?

Also, please clarify for me that you are discussing the political/social aspects of the sublime, as I cannot find any major differences between "American" and "European" sublime currently in the arts (largely because "European" is so hard to pin down in this regard, and also because of progressive "Americanisation" of Europe), although I think I can identify differences occurring in the past.

HG, please would you be more specific in identifying exactly what the differences are. When you refer to "cold war configurations"' what do you mean and are you referring to the American configurations or the "European" (or Eastern European) configurations?

As to "critics of the distinction", I suspect they are awaiting with bated breath for a list of particulars that might then be debated. As for me, I am simply curious to learn what the differences are and in what sphere and to be exposed to rational arguments in either direction.

Kind regards

Chris

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Rout,

I think the matter of the "sublime" vague enough that there are bound to be differences  continually arising in discussions of the topic. Regarding Emerson, where my scholarship is on firmer grounds, I would emphasize the difference between "nature" and "Nature." He uses both, and it is "Nature" which is sublime not mere "nature." You can think of this as a matter of his pantheistic take on the world. "Nature" arises as we each perceive and interpret mere nature, in our "inspired" vision or view of it. This is open to anyone: "continuous revelation," as it were.

It is not, say, the Grand Canyon, that great gorge and barrier to travel, which is sublime, but rather the manner in which we take it as a symbol of the wild and untamed and erect a National Park, to commemorate the vision of it. Again, as I think I mentioned before, the national style of landscape is that it should look wild rather than being a "culture-landscape"--not that it should actually be wild, of course. Where it is re-made by human hands it is often or typically made to look wild or natural. Contrast the manicured garden or the cultured look of European landscapes.

As for the "Cold-War configurations," this is a matter of habits of mind and organization which grew up over the period of the long struggle of the Cold War. Think of a walled city long under siege. How do the people inside organize themselves? Do they deliberate debate and vote on every option and alternative? Or, is it more likely that, under constant threat of extinction, they become "defensive," risk adverse, and tend to defer to the authority of those charged with organizing the defense? Freedom tends to be sacrificed to security, though almost all the chief American founders warned continually against just that tendency.

I've often thought that our friends abroad should ask themselves what kind of America they want. I think there are clearly "Cold-War configurations" of politics and society in Western Europe, too. But that is perhaps a different topic.

H.G. Callaway

Dear HG

Thank you for this. Is this the American take on the sublime wrt nature, or a more general one? In either case I have issues with the role of "symbolism", as it introduces an aspect of rationalisation within the sublime event, which (if I recall correctly) both Burke and Kant warn against. Yes the sublime event could, indeed perhaps should, stimulate subsequent i.e post event) rational processing, even as early as the withdrawal through realisation of distance, but the even itself should be a visceral connection with "something else" -primeval. spiritual, archetypical, supernatural - call it what you will.

Earlier on in this discussion Lilliana used Giorgione's "Tempesta" as an example of the art of the sublime. At the time I was somewhat surprised as I had never regarded it as such. In many ways it fits the bill as it might be taken (nobody actually knows what it's about - Giorgione never said) as representing defencelessness in the face of overwhelming (super)nature. But the problem with it is that it is so obviously allegorical/symbolic that it doesn't create the visceral effect I expect from sublime art it connects me with art history/theory rationalism, not the sublime. The other problem is that it is a very small painting- I usually need something bigger.

Throughout this discussion I have had niggling intrusions into my head by a replay of Plato's cave. Thinking about it I can see why;  what my subconscious is trying to tell me is that the sublime event is a glimpse beyond the wall - a sensible guide to the intelligible if you like. By making the sublime symbolic we make it subservient to beauty, the good and pursuit of truth, whereas on my view it transcends all three.

I am beginning to see social /political connections now. Your walled city analogy was excellent. Presumably the sublime event for the enlaagered population would be a glimpse beyond the walls/feudal construct of safety.

Best Wishes

Chris