FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 155, this post includes portion of 6-2-94 letter from Hospers to me blasting Christian Evangelicalism, John Hospers Part K (Featured artist is Frank Stella )

__

John Hospers pictured below:

Image result for john hospers

 

I sent a cassette tape of Adrian Rogers on Evolution to John Hospers in May of 1994 which was the 10th anniversary of Francis Schaeffer’s passing and I promptly received a typed two page response from Dr. John Hospers. Dr. Hospers had both read my letter and all the inserts plus listened to the whole sermon and had some very angry responses. If you would like to hear the sermon from Adrian Rogers and read the transcript then refer to my earlier post at this link.  Over the last few weeks I have posted  portions of Dr. Hospers’ letter and portions of the cassette tape that he listened to back in 1994, but today I want  to look at some other comments made on that cassette tape that John Hospers listened to and I will also post a few comments that Dr. Hospers made in that 2 page letter.

John Hospers Compares John Ross’s Unintended Consequences and Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged

Published on May 2, 2012

John Hospers was professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Southern California. He was also the first Libertarian Party Presidential candidate in 1972.

In this lecture from an International Society of Individual Liberty conference in 1996, Hospers compares John Ross’s novel Unintended Consequences with Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. Hospers was a personal friend of Rand during her lifetime. He passed away in 2011.

Download the .mp3 of this lecture here: http://bit.ly/KvAzAh

Image result for john hospers ayn rand

MemoirConversations
With Ayn Rand
Part 2
by John Hospers
(Originally published in Liberty magazine, 1987)

In our last issue, John Hospers related what it was like to talk philosophy with Ayn Rand. Now, in the conclusion to his memoir, he details some of their philosophical differences and relates the inevitable falling out between the philosopher and the visionary. . .
.
Ayn occasionally expressed some disquiet (perhaps resentment) that she
was not recognized as a philosopher by the contemporary philosophical
community. In spite of long philosophical passages in Atlas Shrugged,
philosophers had never taken note of her views, and her philosophizing
in Atlas had largely fallen on deaf ears in the academic community.
I told her that philosophical discussion goes on almost entirely in
philosophical journals. What about philosophical books? she asked.
“Yours is a philosophical book,” I said, “but it is a novel. It’s not
that philosophers don’t read novels—though a lot of them don’t—but
they don’t consider it their professional duty to do so.” Besides, I
added, she had acquired a right-wing image in the popular press, and
that is a position that most academicians are strongly opposed to.
There were a few well-placed curses from Ayn about the prejudices of
the “liberal establishment.”

I told her that if she wanted to become known in philosophical
circles, she should write a piece or two and submit it to the Journal
of Philosophy or the Philosophical Review or the Review of
Metaphysics. After its publication, I said, it would be studied,
commented on, and probably criticized. She would then respond to these
criticisms, which again would evoke more from others, and at that
point, I said, “I guarantee that you will be known as a philosopher.”
But she never did this. She did not want to enter the arena of public
give-and-take with them. She wanted them to come to her. What she
wanted of philosophers, other than recognition, is not easy to say. I
am sure she would have cursed them soundly if they offered criticisms.
Even a mild criticism would often send her to the stratosphere in
anger.

At the same time, I must add, she would often tolerate criticism, even
revel in responding to it, if (1) it was given “in the right spirit”
(the vibes had to be non-hostile) and (2) it was sort of “on the right
track”—the sort of thing that could be said by someone who was “on his
way to the truth” but hadn’t yet arrived there; then she would
“correct him” painstakingly and in detail.

I sometimes pondered how people could approach so differently the
enterprise of philosophy. I thought of the composers Igor Stravinsky
and Richard Strauss; each occupies a high place in contemporary music,
but neither could tolerate the other’s musical idiom. Similarly, was
it just a difference of style among philosophers? Surely not. Each
comes to philosophy as a satisfaction for a felt need. I had been
“burned” early on by over-eager philosophic generalizations, and I was
weary of systems in which different philosophers said opposed things,
with no apparent way of resolving the issues in favor of the one or
the other. I had come to the conceptual-analysis route as a way of
resolving (or sometimes dissolving) problems that had long haunted me.
Ayn had aimed instead at a “final philosophical synthesis,” and
regardless of its strengths or weaknesses, that is what she had to
present to the world.
 
Human beings are distinguished from all other creatures by the power
of choice. I agreed with Ayn about this—we know that the dog scratches
at the door but we don’t know that he chose to do it (nor do we know
that he didn’t). But I tended to disagree with Ayn about some of the
things that (according to her) we choose. Do we really choose “to
think, or not to think”? I for one (I said) don’t remember making such
a choice. I would often think about things, perhaps because I am a
questioning sort of person and don’t usually take things on faith.
Yes, often when confronted by a specific problem, I have said “I’ll
think about it.” But when my first acts of thinking occurred I no more
chose “to think or not to think” than I chose “to be or not to be.”
But more than that I considered the scope of human choice to be much
more limited than she did. Some limitations we would both agree on: a
dunce can’t choose to be a genius, and a crippled person can’t choose
to walk (he can only choose to try, unsuccessfully). Without practice
a person can’t choose to do shorthand or typing at 60 words a minute.
Neither can a person, just by choosing (or even by choosing and
trying), extricate himself from situations that have been years
abuilding. An obsessive-compulsive cannot just stop doing whatever he
obsessively has been doing for years, such as putting the key in the
lock three times and then tapping the floor three times (or whatever
his ritual is). And if a teenager ran away from home to escape
alcoholic parents and now has lived on the city streets for two years,
she can’t just suddenly “straighten out” and become a normal
citizen—the gutter-instincts (survival by any means) are just too
strong by now. And so on for thousands of cases in which we may
unthinkingly believe people could have chosen to do what we want them
to do.

At this point in my diatribe Ayn reminded me that people do escape
from the slums, that with determination they overcome seemingly
impossible odds and sometimes become leaders in society. Prepared for
this observation, I granted that it was true; but the fact that one
person, A, can do this, doesn’t show that other persons, B, C, and D,
can also do it. Each of them acts under somewhat different conditions
from A. They have one common denominator, slum upbringing; but some
had the love and trust of their parents, and the wherewithal to
prepare them to surmount adversities, and others did not; some had
father-figures with whom they could identify; and so on. (If a person
tries hard enough, he will succeed; but what is meant by “hard
enough”? Would you call it “hard enough” if he did not succeed?
Doesn’t the statement come to the tautology “If you try till you
succeed, you’ll succeed”?)

Anyway, all this preparatory conversation was so much chaff in the
wind, for Ayn hit me with the charge that I was sure she would come up
with sooner or later. “You don’t believe in freedom at all, you are a
determinist.”

I knew what dense philosophical thicket lay in waiting here, with
vague and overlapping meanings of crucial terms like “free,”
“determined,” and “caused.” I hesitated even to embark on it. One must
come at the issue from so many different aspects, breaking one stone
and then another along the way—and most people lack the tenacity to go
through it all, they want quick and easy solutions, so that they can
repeat certain verbal formulas and convince themselves that they have
the problem mastered. So I began simply: “Determinism is just
universal causation. Everything that happens has some cause or other,
that’s the core meaning of ‘determinism’ (to which other meanings have
sometimes become attached). The causes may be matter or mind, spirits
or God—all that determinism says is that everything has a cause, even
if we never find out what all the causes are.” This was determinism in
its most neutral, vanilla-flavored sense, without the punch it was
supposed to pack, for there was nothing in my formulation that made it
incompatible with freedom, yet that was the main feature which led
many people to oppose it.

Of course, I continued, if everything is caused, events in human life
are caused too. Every decision you or I make is caused. But so what? I
decide to rake the leaves because I think the lawn looks unsightly. So
what’s so hostile to freedom in that? Would it be better if I
causelessly raked the lawn?

But of course, no matter how many actions are caused by decisions (or
other things going on in the mind), ultimately these events in the
mind are caused by things that take place in the world outside the
mind. They may be hereditary factors or factors in the environment,
all very complex indeed, but if my decisions are caused, so are the
factors that caused them, and so on back. And over the hereditary and
early environmental factors I had no control at all. So am I really
free?

Once the term “free” is raised, more clarification is called for. (I
discussed this with Ayn at much greater length than I have indicated
here.) The word “free,” I began, does have a use; it does describe
something. Ordinarily we say that I am free when I am not coerced,
when no one has forced me to act as I do; I act as a result of my own
choice, unforced and unconstrained by others. If she marries him
because she wants to, she does so freely, but if she is dragged to the
altar she is forced. This is a rough-and-ready distinction that
everyone understands and uses. Does determinism (I said) really deny
this? Determinism says “My act is caused”; freedom says “I caused my
act.” The difference is between the active and the passive voice.
Ayn started to object, but I went on. Sure, you can find causal
antecedents of human actions in the brain, in the environment, in
parental influences—in such complex causation as this there are
antecedents to be found all over the place. Most of the factors,
however, we don’t know at all, such as what makes one person make this
decision and another person in the same circumstances make a different
decision. In the human realm we are very far from having established
determinism as we have done in physics and astronomy, where we can
predict an eclipse to the split-second a hundred years ahead.
Determinism asserts the universality of causes in the human realm,
without having gone much of the distance toward proving it that has
been accomplished in the natural sciences.

Ayn expressed the belief that in the area of human choices, there are
indeed causes, but that a person in so acting is self-caused (causa
sui). I expressed doubt as to what this could mean. If something is
caused, isn’t it caused by something else, something other than
itself? How could my decision cause itself? Cause has to do with
origination, and how could the origin of choice X be choice X itself?
We can say, truly, that I caused my choices—that I, a complex set of
actual and dispositional characteristics, caused this act of choosing
to occur—but that is not the same as saying that X caused X. I was not
able to see causa sui as anything but a desperate attempt to escape
“the dilemma of determinism.”

At any rate, what I wanted to make crystal clear to Ayn was that the
“principle of determinism” (or Causal Principle), that everything that
occurs has a cause, is not merely a statement (true or false) about
nature’s workings; I tried to give her a sense that it had a much more
complex and ambivalent epistemological status than that, which
rendered labels like “true” and “false” extremely dubious.
I tried to make the epistemological point very simply. Suppose a
chemistry student gets some quite unexpected results when he repeats a
laboratory experiment. He then reports to his teacher that the same
effects don’t always arise from the same cause: he set up the
experiment exactly the same both times, yet got different results (an
orange precipitate in the first case, none in the second). Conditions
C produced result E-l the first time and E-2 the second time—different
effects from the same cause! Yet his teacher wouldn’t tolerate this
for a moment. Maybe he had some evidence that the C’s weren’t the
same—he might find an impurity in the liquid the second time that
wasn’t there the first. But more usually he had no evidence at
all—there was a difference in the E’s, he reasoned, so there had to be
a difference in the C’s. And we would say this whether we know it or
not, whether we ever discover it or not.

And so on in general, I said. If after repeated trials we discover the
cause of something, we say that confirms the Causal Principle even
more; but if after repeated trials we fail to discover the cause, we
don’t say it had no cause, but only (and always) that it’s there but
we haven’t discovered it yet. Isn’t this a remarkable asymmetry? Isn’t
this very peculiar—a principle that discoveries confirm but no
discoveries can disconfirm? A principle that parades as a truth about
the world, yet is apparently immune to refutation by discoveries about
the world? What does this show? Isn’t there “something funny going on”
here? Aren’t we trying to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds?
Isn’t this asymmetry a ground for suspicion?

I was not sure whether Ayn followed the direction in which I was
pointing, but I went on. I suggested that the much-vaunted Causal
Principle was not a statement about the world at all—not like “All
birds fly,” which can be disconfirmed by finding a few ostriches. That
which can be confirmed by experience but not disconfirmed by
experience is not a statement about the world. It might be an a priori
truth, like the Law of Identity, not subject to, and not requiring,
confirmation by experience. But I could not think it a priori because
it made claims about nature which, I suggested, could only be
confirmed by observing nature—which can’t be done from one’s armchair.
Instead, I suggested that it was a kind of scientific rule-of-the-game
(“heuristic maxim”) that has stood us in good stead because when we
used it in the past we have found lots of causes, but one which we
don’t permit to be disconfirmed, for there’s nothing that we could do
that we need to count as disconfirming it. It’s a rule, the following
of which has pragmatic value—it helps us to find more causes; but
since it isn’t falsifiable it doesn’t count as an empirical rule,
which is what it would be if it were like “All birds fly” or “All
bodies gravitate.”

Something may look like a plain and simple statement about the world,
the only question about it being “Is it true or false?” But what looks
like a statement needn’t be a statement, and perhaps this one
isn’t—instead maybe it’s a rule that we use to guide our future
scientific activities, or express a faith in some ultimate uniformity
of nature. And if it has that status, then our talk about the
Principle of Determinism being true or false is mistaken from the
outset. We have been misled into thinking it has this simple
true-false status at all.

I could not expect Ayn or anyone else to grasp the import of this at
once: to someone who has spent most of a lifetime asking “Is it true
or is it false?” it is disorienting and mind-blowing to be told that
this distinction may not be applicable to the question at hand. One
has to see how this approach can be applied to other philosophical
problems (not just determinism), and how it clarifies or dissolves
those problems rather than leaving them forever intractable. But to
appreciate all this requires much more one-on-one philosophizing than
I had done with Ayn. I had high hopes that we might yet do it. But
whether it was the defects of my presentation or her disinclination to
think outside the traditional categories with which she had operated
for many years, I was never able to get far with her on this—it
remained terra incognita to her, and her responses seldom indicated
that she had grasped the true import of what I had said.
 
It seemed to me that she failed to appreciate the subtle shifts of
meaning of crucial terms that often occur midway in a discussion, and
result in total confusion unless the shifts are pointed out when they
arise. She seemed to have a number of ideas packaged together under
the heading she called “determinism” and assumed that the term
retained the same meaning in its various contexts of use (a common
enough error). One example that I particularly remember is that she
would say that according to determinism a person never could  do other
than he did; and that if exactly the same circumstances were to arise
again (according to determinism), the same result would occur.
“And if the same thing didn’t recur,” I said, “then you’d conclude,
without further evidence, that some factor in the circumstances
leading up to it were different this time. And you would say it,” I
insisted, “as an a priori assumption, without any independent evidence
that any of the conditions were different.” I remember using this
analogy: A says “All swans are white,” and B replies that there are
black swans in Australia; to which A replies, “If they’re not white,
they’re not swans.”

I tried to open up to her the logic of the word “could.” I said that
“could” is an ability word: when someone says “You couldn’t have done
otherwise,” this charge invites the retort, “Not even if I wanted to?”
And of course if I had wanted to I would have done something
different—I would have continued reading the paper instead of going to
the kitchen. My wanting to do X instead of Y could well be the
deciding factor that caused me to do X instead of Y. So, I said, it
isn’t true that I couldn’t have done Y; I would have done Y if I had
wanted to.

But the next step, of course, was “According to determinism, you
couldn’t have wanted anything other than you did.” But what, I said,
does “couldn’t” mean in this sentence? That I wouldn’t have wanted
anything else even if I had wanted to? No? If not, then what does
“could” mean in this sentence? I suggested that it would be preferable
to say that if exactly the same conditions were repeated the same
event would have happened—and then show the unprovability of that
statement because of the impossibility of tracking down all the
conditions.

Ayn was impatient with such subtleties. When we recapitulated, she
would always return to the position that if you are a determinist you
believe that nothing could have happened except what did happen. And
once again I would inquire what “could” might mean in that
sentence—and we would start on the merry-go-round once again.
Of course, I went on, there are (as usual) other senses of “could” as
well, not specifically applying to human action. We may say that when
you let go this pencil from your hand it could not fly upwards, that
it could not do anything but go downwards in accordance with the law
of gravity. But that is only to say that the downward motion of the
pencil is the one that accords with laws of nature. That is, if you
assume certain laws of physics, then the pencil could not (logically
could not) have moved in any other way. The “could” here is a logical
“could” (not an empirical one) expressing the logical connection
between statements—statements of the laws of nature, statements about
the mass and volume of the pencil, and the third statements (the
conclusion) about the behavior of the pencil. We can say that granted
certain premises, this behavior could not have been other than it was.
(But, I added, saying that the pencil could not have behaved otherwise
is already a departure from the central meaning of “could,” which has
to do with ability.)
 
I never made much progress with her on determinism, but when we talked
one evening about a specific kind of causation—extra-sensory
perception—I evoked in her an unexpectedly vigorous response.
I do not remember how the subject arose, and I didn’t even consider it
a philosophical area of discussion, but I was describing to her Soal
and Bateman’s book Experiments in Parapsychology. I explained that out
of thousands of tries, a few people made very good subjects; they were
able to state with considerable accuracy truths that (as far as we
knew) were discoverable only by sense-perception, but which they could
not have known through sense-perception.

A man was sealed into a room evening after evening, and there was no
possible communication between this room and another room three doors
away—there were scientists who averred that there was no way a person
in Room 1 could convey information to someone in Room 4. In each of
these two sealed-off rooms, cards were being pulled from a deck one
per minute. Every minute a bell would ring, at which moment a card
would be pulled from a deck in one room and the subject in the other
room would write on a piece of paper which card he thought it was.
There were five different kinds of cards (apple, elephant etc.) and
thus one chance out of five of guessing correctly. Getting the correct
result slightly above chance (20 percent) for a time wasn’t
particularly noteworthy, but getting results like 40 percent correct
over 100,000 attempts was quite remarkable, the chances against this
being some trillions to one. Yet several subjects were reported to
have done just that, and no one knew how. Ayn looked skeptical but
allowed me to proceed.

Moreover, I went on, the subjects had improved with practice. From a
fifth they had gone gradually to a quarter and even to a third. No one
could figure out how they got the ability to do this. They themselves
didn’t know: they weren’t aware at the time that they were guessing
correctly, they just “put down the first thing that popped into their
heads.” And then the rules of the game were changed—”You will now
write down the card that was being pulled last night at this point in
the sequence”—and their achievements vanished (went down to chance),
but came up again with practice to the previous fraction.

And then, most curious of all, the rules were changed once more: “You
will write down the card that is going to be pulled at this point in
the sequence tomorrow evening.” Again the results went down to chance,
but again with practice the record gradually improved. But the
implications of it shocked me: How could they possibly know the
future? What if between tonight and tomorrow night the entire building
burned down? And so on.

Ayn was now taken quite aback, and thought I should give no credence
to any of this. It implied reverse causality, she said, and that was
impossible—something at a later time causing something at an earlier
time. I agreed that reverse causality was impossible—such as the rain
tomorrow helping the crops grow today. But I didn’t think the example
involved reverse causality but only precognition. We all predict the
future, I said, usually with some evidence; what made this case
peculiar was the ability of the person to make a correct prediction
again and again without apparently having any evidence whatever. (At
least there was nothing known to science that we would call evidence.)
That was what I found different about this kind of case, and I
couldn’t think of any explanation.

Ayn was quite shocked that I would take any of this “mystery-
mongering” seriously. (It was hard to convey briefly the
import of entire books on the subject, and the extraordinary lengths
to which people had gone to make sure there was no sensory route by
which A could have known B.) Didn’t I know that reality does not work
in that way? Perhaps so, I said—and I added I didn’t much care whether
reality does work in that way or not—but whether it does or doesn’t is
not something we can know by just pontificating about it from our
armchairs: we have to go the difficult route of empirical
investigation to find out whether people can know truths about the
universe that are not mediated through sense-organs. One cannot know
this a priori, I claimed; one has to go the more difficult route of
checking it all out in detail. But I gathered that she considered this
all a matter of necessity—that it was necessarily the case that nature
doesn’t work in this way. She was more disturbed about my
permissiveness on this subject than I had thought she would be.
Instead of saying that nature can’t work in this way, the question for
me was whether in fact it does; if it does, then it won’t do to say
that it can’t.

For me, the question of what caused what is entirely a contingent
matter, on which we can make judgments only in the light of
observation of the world. But it dawned on me that Ayn didn’t accept
the distinction between necessary and contingent at all. For her, it
seemed (though I never got it in just these words) every statement
that is true is necessarily true. “Doesn’t everything that happens
have to happen?” she once asked me.

I replied that one would first have to inquire about the meaning of
the phrase “have to.” In most locutions, “have to” involves a command
or order—”I have to be in by midnight.” When one says that events in
nature, such as a comet entering the earth’s atmosphere, have to
happen, it sounds first off as if this event is being commanded,
perhaps by God. But this is surely not what most people mean when they
say it. Perhaps we mean that if one accepts certain laws of nature
(concerning gravitation, mass, velocity), and if one grants certain
initial conditions (Comet X is in such-and-such a position at
such-and-such a time), then Comet X must be another place at a
specific other time. (Not that the comet must—but that the
statement—the conclusion—logically must be true if the premises are
true. The “must” is about the relation between statements, not about
phenomena in nature.) When I say that if I let go of this pencil it
must fall, doubtless I am saying that the statement that it does (or
will) follows from certain laws of nature plus initial conditions. But
it would be clearer if I just said that the pencil will fall.

There are many uses of “must” and “have to” (I took her through
several more) and I told Ayn that I thought she was telescoping
several disparate uses of the term “must” into one, without
distinguishing among them, and that this might be why she was led to
make such a statement as “whatever happens must (has to) happen.” (If
you take it quite literally, I said, it seems like a more extreme
fatalism than any view I have ever countenanced.)
 
Ayn usually let me take the initiative in deciding what subjects we
should discuss. The conversations described in this paper reflect
largely my choice of topics—these were the things about which I was
interested in sounding her out. I reflected later that in this respect
I had probably made a mistake. Only occasionally did we get around to
discussing topics that were central to her philosophy. That is why
some topics central to her are largely absent from these pages. Her
papers on these subjects had yet to be written.
 
“A is A” is, I insisted, a tautology, but an important one: every time
a person is guilty of a logical inconsistency he is saying A and then
in the next breath not-A. Thus “A is A” is something of which we need
to remind ourselves constantly. But it is not, I said, an empirical
statement: we don’t have to go around examining cats to discover
whether they are cats. (We might have to examine this creature to
discover whether it is a cat.)

But, I said, statements of what causes what, such as “Friction causes
heat,” are empirical statements; we can only know by perceiving the
world whether they are true. How, I wondered, can the Law of Causality
be merely an application of the Law of Identity? You could manipulate
the Law of Identity forever and never squeeze out anything as specific
as a single causal statement.

But (I went on) I could see how such a confusion might be generated. A
tautology can easily look like something else. “A thing acts in
accordance with its nature” might be one example. This might be taken
as an instance of the Law of Identity: if a creature of type X acts in
accordance with laws A, B, C, and this creature doesn’t do that, then
it isn’t an X. If dogs bark and growl and this creature hisses and
meows, it isn’t a dog; that is, we wouldn’t call anything a dog that
did this. So we can plausibly classify the statement about what we
call “a thing’s nature” as special cases of the Law of Identity. But
this, I insisted, tells us nothing about the world, but only about how
we are using words like “dog” and “cat.”

What is a thing’s “nature” supposed to be anyway? I went on. Is a
thing’s nature its definition? Some might say yes: it’s the nature of
water to be two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. But one might also
answer no: it’s the nature of water, one might say, to flow downwards,
and this is no part of any (usual) definition of “water.” It wouldn’t
even be true if atmospheric pressure were ever so much less than on
earth (it might evaporate and not flow). So to answer the question, we
have to know what the person means by talking about a thing’s nature.
Often, I suggested, when we talk about a thing’s nature we are talking
about a set of dispositional traits: thus, “It is the nature of cats
to prowl”—yet so far as I know the tendency to prowl is not listed in
the definition of “cat.” Or, when we say “I used to think his lying
was just a quirk, but now I think it’s his nature,” we are saying that
his tendency to lie is a more fundamental trait than we had previously
thought.

I could see that Ayn was getting bored, so I summarized the moral of
the tale: that statements about “X’s nature” sound simple and easy,
but that under this linguistic simplicity lies a morass of vagueness,
which comes out only gradually as we explicate one case after another
in which we actually use the expression. I seemed unable to convey to
Ayn any sense of this; and yet, it seemed to me, what was wrong with
the usual philosophic formulations, including hers, couldn’t be
appreciated without going through the detailed “digging” required to
turn up these disparate meanings, and their confusion with one another
from which the errors flow. Philosophic formulas, I said, merely give
us “philosophy on the cheap.”
 
It was inevitable that sooner or later we would get to the subject of
definition. I never had an opportunity to present my views on this
systematically, from the ground up. I had done this in some detail in
my book Introduction to Philosophical Analysis, in the long 100-page
introductory chapter entitled “Words and the World.” I gave her a copy
of the book and encouraged her to read the relevant chapter. But she
never did; I was disappointed by this, for I had thought we could use
this material at least as a starting place for discussion, but in time
I realized that she read almost no philosophy at all. And I was amazed
how much philosophy she could generate “on her own steam,” without
consulting any sources.

She began by insisting that one should search for true definitions,
and I responded that definitions were neither true nor false. But it
shortly turned out that I was talking about definitions of words and
phrases, and she was talking about definitions of things (entities in
the world) or, sometimes, concepts of those things. But I expressed
ignorance as to what the phrase “the definition of a thing” meant. (We
also discussed “definition of concepts,” examining the differences
between words and concepts.)

I suggested that there were no true or false definitions. “The word
‘symphony’ once referred to any orchestral composition, without voice,
in four movements,” I said. “Then, as in Beethoven’s 9th, voices would
sometimes be introduced and the work would still be called a symphony,
so that was no longer a defining feature. Then in the 20th century
came one-movement symphonies, such as Sibelius’ 7th, so the
four-movement requirement fell out. What happened was that the word
‘symphony’ was no longer used to describe what it had described
before. But there is no true or false definition of ‘symphony.'”

A simple case to the contrary, Ayn said, was that H2O is a true
definition of water; if someone said water was HO or H2SO4, he would
be mistaken.

I responded that I saw nothing but confusion in this. “It depends on
what you mean in the first place by the word ‘water.’ If by ‘water’
you mean H2O, then course ‘Water is H2O’ is true because you’ve
already defined water to mean that. All you get that way is ‘H2O is
H2O,’ a simple tautology. But of course you might not already mean
that by the word ‘water’—early man surely did not. He meant the liquid
that flows in streams and rivers. In that meaning, it is true that
water is H2O—that is, the liquid in streams and rivers has the
chemical formula H2O. That is a true statement about water—an
empirically true statement, not a definition. Once you are clear what
you mean by the word, the issue is resolved.”

Ayn alleged that man is a rational animal, and that this is a true
definition. It is true, in other words, that that’s what man is. I
replied that it all depends what you mean by “man” in that sentence.
As a rule we employ a biological definition of man—man is a creature
with two legs, two arms, walks upright, etc.; that’s how we identify
creatures as human without knowing anything more about them than our
senses present to us. Now, the creature that fulfills that biological
requirement is also a rational animal (that is, has rational
potentialities, even if unfulfilled)—that is a true statement: not a
definition, but a statement about the creatures identified by the
first (biological) definition. (Of course, again, if by “man” you
already mean “rational animal,” then it’s a sheer tautology.)
We could say, I suggested, that man is a laughing animal, or an
aesthetic animal (the only creature that enjoys works of art), a
volitional animal (the only creature capable of choice), and perhaps
several others. But, as Ayn aptly pointed out, these features are less
fundamental. If we were not rational animals we would not be able to
comprehend works of art or see the point of jokes; the rationality
explains the other characteristics, not vice versa. I assented to
this; but I insisted that my point still held, that if “man” is
already defined as a rational animal, the statement that man is a
rational animal is a tautology (merely an example of A is A); whereas
if “man” is defined biologically, as we ordinarily do, then the
statement that man is a rational animal is true, but not a definition.
A stipulative definition, I said, merely tells others how we’re going
to use a word (“I’ll use this noise to mean so-and-so”), and a
stipulation isn’t a true statement, just a proposal to use a noise in
a certain way. A reportive definition is a report of what a word is
used to mean in a language-group. Thus, “A father is a male parent” is
a report (in this case a true one) of what the word “father” is used
to mean in the English language. And finally, if you already mean by
“father” a male parent, the definition of “father” as male parent is
presupposed, and the statement “A father is a male parent” comes to “A
male parent is a male parent,” another instance of “A is A.” Confusion
comes only if we get these scrambled together.

Is “Steel is an alloy of iron” a true definition of steel? No, I said,
it is a definition of “steel” if that is what you choose to mean by
the word “steel.” It is also a true report about how users of the
English language use the word “steel,” and as such it is a true
reportive definition. And if you already mean “alloy of iron” by the
word “steel,” then again you have a tautology, Steel is steel, A is A.
It seemed to me that these distinctions clear up the question. In
every case we define words and phrases, and we describe things (using
the words or phrases).

Whales were once thought to be fish. When it was discovered that they
were mammals, wasn’t this a discovery of the true definition of
whales? The discovery (an empirical one), I said, was that those
creatures which we called “whales” (on the basis of their shape, size,
and general appearance) also had the feature of being mammalian. We
then changed (or biologists did) the definition of the word so as to
include being mammalian as a defining feature; biological
classification on the basis of mammal, reptile, etc., had already long
been in place; so after the discovery nothing that looked like a whale
but was a fish would have been called a whale. The re-definition of
the term was simply an adaptation to existing methods of biological
classification. But the discovery, that these creatures were mammals,
was an empirical one, like the discovery that some nebulae are
actually galaxies.

This is one of the issues that seemed so obvious to me that I did not
see how anyone could think otherwise. That is why I tended not even to
remember opposing remarks as long as they were not clear to me. Rather
than misreport what Ayn said, I have chosen not to say anything about
her remarks: what I said is very clear to me, what she said is not.
At the time being described, Rand’s non-fiction works, including
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, had not yet been written. I
would like to think that our discussions helped motivate her to write
some of these non-fiction works. At the time of our discussions she
was writing very little. Time was on her hands, and perhaps that was
one reason for inviting me back.
 
She vehemently denied the validity of certain distinctions, like
analytic vs. synthetic and a priori vs. a posteriori. Both were
Kantian distinctions, and her hatred of Kant may have played a part in
the rejection; but more likely her rejection of the distinctions
played a part in her hatred of Kant.

Already at the time of our discussions there was critical talk in
philosophic circles about the analytic-synthetic distinction. Is it
analytic to say that all green things are extended? Quine had asked,
and concluded that the failure to provide a satisfactory answer was
due to the unclarity of the term “analytic,” not to any defects in
“green” or “extended.” But the examples I used were of the very
simplest sort: “All A is A” is analytic, I said (it’s another
formulation of the Law of Identity), and “All A is B” is not. “Lions
are lions” is analytic and “Lions are fierce” is not—to determine that
you have to observe lions. And the same for a priori: you don’t have
to go to the next room to discover whether the cat is a cat, but you
do have to in order to find out whether the cat is lying on the bed
there.

Why did Ayn deny a distinction that seemed to me so obvious—perhaps
not for far-out cases like colors being extended, but for ordinary “A
is A” type cases? She seemed to think, as Leibniz had done for
different reasons, that the distinctions do not apply because all the
statements are really in the same bag. All the features of lions,
whether now known or not, are really a part of their definition. All
statements about X follow from X’s definition—that seemed to be the
view.

But I did not see how this could be so. That this table is a solid
object does follow from (or is contained in) the definition of a
table. But that we are now sitting at this table does not. Nothing in
any definition of a table known to me could possibly tell us whether
it is true that we are now sitting at the table.

Perhaps the issue has a different focus: This would not be the egg
that it is if it had not been laid by this hen, and I would not be the
person I am if I had not been born to the specific parents I had.
True—but would I also have to have the characteristic of having been
born at the moment that I was? If I had been born a day earlier (to
the same parents etc.), wouldn’t it still have been me? True, it
wouldn’t have been me if the birth had taken place in ancient
Greece—the parents wouldn’t have been the same, etc. But would one
really be prepared to say that all features of me are defining,
including the mole on my cheek and the fact that a bee had just stung
me? I saw nothing but endless confusion in that way of trying to deny
the difference between necessary and contingent statements.
I tried using some examples, of the kind that made my students catch
on to the distinction most quickly. That this flower is red, that
there are six of them on this plant, that such plants exist at
all—these are contingent statements, they depend on the way the world
is, which can’t be known a priori; that 2 + 2 = 4, that the angles of
a triangle equal 180 degrees, that if A is larger than B then B is
smaller than A—these are necessary truths, I tried to explain, even if
one doesn’t accept the analytic-synthetic distinction.

Or again, with regard to possibility and impossibility: I can’t jump
20 feet high, but I (logically) might, and if I claimed to do so my
statement would be false, but there would be no contradiction in it.
But if I claimed to have gone backward in time, and disappeared from
1961 to 2500 B.C. (and what could that mean?), and actually helped the
Egyptians build the pyramids—this, I said, was a logical
impossibility, because contradictions would be involved in asserting
it: I would be saying that (for example) the pyramid-building occurred
without me (I wasn’t born yet) and also that I participated in it (by
“going back” in 1961 to 2500 B. C.); and that there were, let’s say,
5,368 persons building the pyramids and (with the new addition of
myself) there were 5,369—but there (logically) couldn’t have been both
5,368 and other than 5,368. And so on. She granted the impossibility
in the second case, but perhaps not for the reason I mentioned. To her
all impossibility was of one stripe, and she did not admit the
distinction between logical and empirical possibility.
 
I stated a problem (or pseudo-problem) which seemed to fascinate my
students: “How do you know that you and I are seeing the same color?
True, we both pass the color-blindness tests, and you say you see
green when you look at the tree, just as I do, but how do I know you
aren’t the victim of a “reversed spectrum,” for example that you
regularly see red where I see green and vice versa, but of course you
call it green like everyone else, since that’s the word you’ve been
taught to use in describing the color of trees? But perhaps if I could
see what you’re seeing, I’d call it red, or something else. After all,
how do I know?” Maybe the outcome has no practical import, but it’s a
nice theoretical question anyway—the sort of thing that science seems
unable to answer.

I cannot say that Ayn was fascinated by this question. She regarded it
as rather trivial. But she heard me out. I suggested that you can
(usually, perhaps always) get to what a questioner means by his
question, if he can tell you what sort of thing would satisfy him as
an answer—what precisely does he want to know? Now consider these
possibilities (I said): (1) Suppose it were technically possible, as
one day it may be, to connect one person’s eyes and optic nerve with
another person’s brain. You could, then, quite literally see through
the other person’s eyes; and then you would know whether the leaves
looked the same color to you as they did when you looked through your
own eyes. You’d be able to compare what you saw with your former eyes
with what you saw through your new eyes. Perhaps when you did this you
would say, “They still look the same to me,” and that would settle the
question; or you might say “They don’t look as they used to at all,”
and that too would settle the question.

But of course (I pursued) one may object that this won’t do. (2)
Exchanging eyes isn’t enough, runs the objection. The interpretation
of these visual data takes place in the brain. To settle the issue, I
would not only have to have your eyes, I’d have to have your brain (or
at least a part of it). But now we run into what’s called the problem
of personal identity. If my brain were put into your body and vice
versa (assuming this to be as technically possible as exchanging eyes)
would it still be me? Would it still be me, with all my brain’s
memory-traces now inside your head? Here we run into a problem that’s
more than a technical problem; what is it that constitutes one’s self,
if not one’s perceptions, dispositions, and memories? How can I
exchange brains with you and still be me? Thus, if this second
alternative is the one demanded to resolve the problem, then unlike
the first alternative, it can’t be solved: the conditions demanded for
the solution are self-contradictory.

Ayn wasn’t very impressed with all this. She didn’t consider the
issue to be of any importance in the first place. She was
temperamentally unsympathetic to this way of doing philosophy. And she
had no patience with the distinctions I used in order to arrive at a
solution. For her it was a non-solution to a non-problem.
 
In spite of her lack of concern for shifts of meaning in a word or
phrase, I had to be very careful what terms I used in her presence;
for some terms, if I used them, would trigger in her an instant
conclusion that was quite foreign to anything I meant. When I
mentioned that a theory in science can be accepted or rejected on
pragmatic grounds—as a device for explaining the most by means of the
least—she would hear the term “pragmatic” and accuse me of being a
pragmatist. And then I would explain at some length that I was not a
pragmatist in any sense that she probably had in mind—for example, I
did not hold that the truth of a statement had anything to do with its
utility. I only used the term within a definite context, with a
meaning defined within that context—and one should not jump to the
conclusion “You’re a pragmatist,” for I wouldn’t even know what she
meant by the term in that sentence.

For a person who was always insisting on “iron-clad definitions,” I
found her linguistic habits quite sloppy. I was aware that Rome wasn’t
built in a day and that she had not grown up in a tradition in which
sensitivity to these matters was considered important—one just strode
over the issues in seven-league boots (my characterization, not hers).
Still, philosophic outcomes depend so much on just such subtleties
that I became discouraged when after many hours of discussion she
showed no more awareness of where I was really coming from than she
had when we started.

I had no problems with her ignorance of modern logic or physics (such
as Heisenberg’s principle), but when the very issues she raised
required a finely honed instrument to grapple with them insightfully,
and she seemed quite unaware of what that instrument could do, and
remained so after time, I gradually became as discouraged with her as
she was impatient with me.
 
Somewhere she had picked up the idea that philosophers in the
twentieth century were skeptical about the existence of an “external
world” (tables, trees, stars, etc.). I told her that skeptical
arguments in this area were still extensively examined, in the
tradition of Hume, but that no one so far as I knew had any actual
doubts about the existence of the chair they were sitting on, and so
on. But that, she said, was the mistake: they don’t doubt it in
practice but they do in theory—they don’t practice what they preach. I
explained that when skeptical arguments occur, as in Hume, they have
to be met, in an attempt to make theory accord with practice; one
can’t just assume that “common sense” is always right. I explained a
similar situation in Zeno’s paradoxes, and Parmenides’ attempt to deny
the reality of motion. I said there were lots of problems about the
relation of the world to the senses by means of which we perceive it.
I did mention, almost incidentally, an attempt to prove that we know
the existence of the external world for certain, namely by Prof.
Norman Malcolm in his essay “The Verification Argument” (in Max
Black’s anthology, Philosophical Analysis). Instantly she picked up on
this, inquiring about Malcolm as a possible ally. She wanted to know
more about him and even to invite him to New York for a personal
meeting. She did not read his article, or anything else by him, but I
outlined the rather complex argument of the article for her in two
typed pages, trying to state his premises accurately and show how they
yielded his conclusions. She expressed gratitude to me for doing this.
But, she wondered, why should a person go to such lengths to defend a
thesis that was so obvious? I realized that to Ayn the existence of
the physical world was axiomatic and didn’t require defense, and told
her that she would probably find no particular ally in Malcolm, who
was most interested (in the essay) in exploring the implications of
terms like “verification” and “certainty.” At any rate, there the
matter dropped. She took my word as to what his arguments were, and as
far as I know she  never read anything to enlighten her further on the
issue.
 
We discussed many other philosophical issues, often in a brief and
fragmentary way, before concentrating on something else. I omit here
those issues of which I could not now give an accurate account from
memory. In many cases I remember more clearly what I said than what
she said. Her non-fiction works had yet to be written, and what I
endeavor to record here is what she and I said then, not what we might
have said later. Moreover, most of my readers will probably be
acquainted with her position on various issues, but unacquainted with
mine; and I want to provide some conception, however brief and
unsystematic, of where I was coming from on the issues we discussed.
 
When we discussed metaphysical and epistemological issues, a certain
tension between us would very gradually and almost imperceptibly
arise. I could usually avoid an unpleasant scene by attributing
(correctly) the view being discussed to some actual philosopher,
living or dead, and then she could curse the philosopher in question
and take the heat off me. It’s not that I wanted to avoid
responsibility for the view, but I wanted to avoid unpleasant scenes,
which only impeded the progress of our discussions, and achieved no
worthwhile end that I could think of. But it was clear that I was not
“giving in” to her brand of metaphysics, and equally clear that my
methods of what I liked to call philosophical clarification were
falling on arid ground in the present case. I became somewhat
discouraged, especially since she seldom acknowledged an error and
seemed less interested in learning than in defending prepared
positions. Moreover, what seemed like a blinding philosophical light
to me would be a total dud to her, and her highly abstract
philosophical pronouncements often seemed to me confused, unclear, or
false, effective though they might be as banners for enlisting the
philosophically un-washed.
 
Meanwhile, several incidents occurred that distressed me. There was a
professor at a midwestern university who had been denied tenure some
months earlier, for saying that he wouldn’t mind too much if his
daughter slept around a bit before she decided on whom to mate with
for life. The faculty was up in arms against the university
administration for terminating him, and started a nation-wide petition
on his behalf. I had also signed a petition requesting that he not be
terminated.

When I showed Ayn the letter to which I had responded on his behalf,
Ayn saw my name on the letterhead and urged me strongly to dissociate
myself from any attempt to defend him. He should not have referred to
his daughter publicly in that way, she said. I asked her whether she
really thought he should be denied tenure just on account of having
said what he did. And Ayn’s reply stunned me: he should have been
terminated from his job, she said, even if he’d had tenure. Knowing
all that tenure means to someone who has worked for years to earn it,
I found her reply shocking and astonishing.
 
Newsweek wrote a terribly unfair piece about Ayn. I responded to it by
letter, trying to answer their charges point by point. I gave Ayn a
copy of my letter. Newsweek never published it, but that, said Ayn,
made no difference; what mattered was that I had come to her defense
by writing it and responding to the false charges.

Not long after, New York University’s philosopher Sidney Hook attacked
her in print, and she wanted me to take him on as well. Knowing
Sidney, I was disinclined to do this. He already knew about my
acquaintance with Ayn, but we had never discussed it further (I hardly
ever saw him). Should I now condemn him publicly and destroy a
long-standing friendship? I knew that this friendship would be at an
end if I condemned him.

Ayn was sure that nothing less than a public condemnation was required
to prove to him how much I was devoted to “intellectual objectivity.”
But she had very little conception of the manners and morals of
professional academicians—they can get along well and even be friends,
while disagreeing strongly with one another on rather fundamental
issues. The philosophic arena was one for the friendly exchange of
diverse ideas. But for her, it was a battlefield in which one must
endlessly put one’s life on the line. I was not willing to risk years
of occasional friendly communion with Sidney by condemning him
publicly, even if I thought he was mistaken in some of his
allegations.

But for Ayn this was a betrayal. It almost cost us our friendship. In
the end she attributed my attitude to the misfortune of having been
brainwashed by the academic establishment, at least with regard to
their code of etiquette.

I once mentioned to her my friendship with Isabel Hungerland, a
distinguished aesthetician from Berkeley with whom I would discuss
issues at philosophical conventions. Ayn inquired what her politics
were. “As far as I know, she’s a liberal,” I said. “What!” exclaimed
Ayn, “a friend of yours—a liberal?”

I realized then that I was expected, once I knew Ayn, to sacrifice
the friendship of all persons with political (and other) views opposed
to hers. Not that I would have to—I was supposed to want to. It was
immoral of me to continue to deal with such people. With many of them,
as with Isabel, I had a kind of relaxed, laid-back relationship, never
talking politics at all from one year to the next, and often not
knowing what their political views were. But now I was supposed to
excommunicate them all. “If thine hand offend thee, cut it off.” I was
not willing to plant a flag on a new terrain and thereby disavow my
allegiance to all other views, and I deeply resented Ayn’s attempt to
steer me in that direction—or should I say, her assumption that I
would “of course” do such a thing.

It wasn’t that I would have been unwilling to declare where I stood,
if I had been totally convinced and was prepared to defend it. I try
not to back off of commitments. But my whole way of coming at
philosophy was quite different from hers, and in spite of various
attempts I don’t think she ever understood mine. With her, it was as
if she were developing a Euclidean geometry from a set of axioms; I,
on the contrary, was the gadfly who kept puncturing the axioms or
finding their meaning (in some cases) to be vague or confused. As a
result of this I was convinced that “the high priori road” was not the
way to go in philosophy; I was sure that a careful, step-by-step,
case-by-case approach, frustrating though it might be in the work
required and the time needed to get anywhere with it, was the only
road to progress. This wearied her, bored her, and ultimately repelled
her.
 
The more time elapsed, the more the vise tightened. I could see it
happening; I hated and dreaded it; but knowing her personality, I saw
no way to stop it. I was sure that something unpleasant would happen
sooner or later. The more time she expended on you, the more
dedication and devotion she demanded. After she had (in her view)
dispelled objections to her views, she would tolerate no more of them.
Any hint of thinking as one formerly had, any suggestion that one had
backtracked or still believed some of the things one had assented to
previously, was greeted with indignation, impatience, and anger. She
did not espouse a religious faith, but it was surely the emotional
equivalent of one.

When I was authorized by the American Society for Aesthetics to ask
Ayn to give a twenty-minute talk at their annual meeting, which would
take place this time in Boston the last weekend of October 1962, I
passed on the offer to her at once. She accepted, with the provision
that I be her commentator (all papers were required to be followed by
a response from a commentator). She thought that I would understand
her views better than those who had no previous acquaintance with
them. I consented.

And so it was that on the last Friday night of October 1962, she gave
her newly-written paper “Art and Sense of Life” (now included in The
Romantic Manifesto). In general I agreed with it; but a commentator
cannot simply say “That was a fine paper” and then sit down. He must
say things, if not openly critical, at least challengingly exegetical.
I did this—I spoke from brief notes and have only a limited
recollection of the points I made. (Perhaps I repressed it because of
what happened shortly thereafter.) I was trying to bring out certain
implications of her talk. I did not intend to be nasty. My fellow
professors at the conference thought I had been very gentle with her.
But when Ayn responded in great anger, I could see that she thought I
had betrayed her. She lashed out savagely, something I had seen her do
before but never with me as the target. Her savagery sowed the seeds
of her own destruction with that audience.

When her colleague Nathaniel Branden and I had a walk in the hall
immediately following this exchange, there was no hint of the
excommunication to come. But after the evening’s events were
concluded, and by previous invitation I went to Ayn and her husband
Frank’s suite in the hotel, I saw that I was being snubbed by everyone
from Ayn on down. The word had gone out that I was to be (in Amish
terminology) “shunned.” Frank smiled at me, as if in pain, but he was
the only one. When I sensed this, I went back to my room. I was now
officially excommunicated. I had not so much as been informed in
advance. It was all over. In the wink of an eye.
So now a two-and-a-half-year friendship was at an end. It had come
with such suddenness, I couldn’t quite handle it at first. The long
evenings with Ayn were now a thing of the past. I was now the one to
feel a sense of betrayal.

But my pain was not entirely unmixed with relief. The pressure had
been mounting, and certain tensions between us had been increasing
steadily. Being forced to choose between friendship and truth as I saw
it (even if I saw it mistakenly), was not my way of conducting
intellectual life. I would sooner or later have had to escape from the
vise, I reflected. Perhaps it was better this way, with an outside
event precipitating the break. Sooner or later, probably sooner, I
would have been too explicitly frank or honest, and she would have had
an angry showdown with me, and that would have been that. Or so I told
myself. At any rate, along with the pain and the desolation, I felt a
sense of release from an increasing oppressiveness, which had been
inexorably tightening.

At dinner earlier that evening, when the radio announcer said that
Kennedy would not call off his blockade of Cuba even at the risk of
nuclear war, Ayn had said, “Good!” Privately I wondered whether she
had also said “Good” in connection with the break in our relations.
Perhaps she merely reflected with regret that the years of her efforts
on my behalf had been largely wasted.

At any rate, that night was the last time I ever saw her.
 
But I heard her once after that. In the late summer of 1968, not long
before the Big Break, Nathan phoned me in California and said “I want
to put you on the line to someone.” The conversation with Ayn was very
brief. “I understand that you are presenting my philosophy to your
classes,” she said. I replied that I was—I considered Ayn’s views in
several of my courses, without thereby implying that I did so with
total agreement. She seemed gratified, and wondered how I was, and
then turned the telephone back to Nathan.
 
I thought of her endlessly during the years. Her enthusiasm for ideas,
her intensity, her unfailing bluntness and those piercing eyes—the
image of these things was never far away from me, especially when I
assigned some of her essays in my classes and discussed them with
students point by point. But I never regretted that I had not been
enveloped further in the web of intellectually stifling allegiances
and entanglements, the route I had seen so many of her disciples go.
In the next few years, as her non-fiction essays appeared, I read them
avidly and made many notes and comments in the margins—points to raise
with her, questions to ask her. But of course I never got to ask them.
And then, almost fifteen years after my expulsion, I heard on the
radio that she had died. I felt, even after all these years, a
devastating sense of loss. It was hard to stay in control during my
talk at the memorial service for her in Barnsdall Park in Los Angeles.
How often, on visiting New York, I had almost stopped at her apartment
building. No, I thought, her friendships are broken but her enmities
last. It wouldn’t be any good. And surely she had treated me pretty
shabbily. But I thought of her, up there in that apartment, without
Frank now, and I wanted to be mesmerized by those piercing eyes once
again, and have another all-night discussion as in the old days.
I never got up the courage to take that step. It would probably have
been useless.  The occasion is past, and the past is gone forever.
That, I thought to myself with a certain grim irony, is at least one
necessary proposition to which she would have given her assent.

Here is a portion of Hospers’ June 2, 1994 letter to me: 

You don’t just throw these statements at an audience and then (without explaining the first ones) go on to throw others. It’s like hurling huge gobs of undigested food around. One would have to go thru each one separately, asking for its presuppositions and hidden assumptions, showing how the argument has shifted, and so on. Most preachers don’t go in for this even know this (never having taken a course in valid REASONING). So they just on pontificating. I feel sorry for the audience, their victims.

BELOW is from a sermon by Adrian Rogers that was included on the cassette tape I sent to DR. JOHN HOSPERS: 

There are not only the historical facts that indicate that the Bible is the Word of God but also there are the scientific facts of the Bible!!!!

There a medical book that has been discovered that goes all the way back at least to 1,552 B.C. It’s called the papyrus Ebers. And that is a compendium, a gathering together of the medical knowledge of ancient Egypt. Ancient Egypt had the dominant position of medicine in the ancient world. And what the ancient Egyptians were able to do is astounding and incredible. And people are still trying to figure out such things as how they embalmed the dead and did certain procedures and so forth. But, in this medical book, there are also some ludicrous things that you read. I’ll give you some of the prescriptions in the papyrus Ebers.

For example, to prevent your hair from turning gray, you anoint it with the blood of a black cat which has been boiled in oil, or with the fat of a rattlesnake. Now, here is a prescription if your hair’s falling out. One remedy is to apply a mixture of 6(?) fats, including those of the snake and the ibex (wild goat). I think I’ll try that! Here’s another prescription. If you have a splinter that’s embedded, you take worm’s blood and donkey’s dung and you put it on that splinter. Can you imagine the tetanus spores and bacteria that would be in donkey’s dung? Other drugs that they used were lizard’s blood, swine’s teeth, rotten meat, moisture from pig’s ears, donkey’s hooves, even excretion from animals.

Now listen. I want you to understand, dear friend. This was written by the sophisticated and learned ancient Egyptians. Now, put on top of that the fact that Moses studied in the University of Egypt. Did you know the Bible says that Moses was trained in all the knowledge of the Egyptians? (Acts 7:22). He had the best education that money could buy because his adopted granddaddy was the Pharaoh of Egypt!

Aren’t you glad that when you read the book of Genesis or Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and so forth, you don’t read anything about lizard’s blood and donkey’s dung, and all of this kind of stuff as being these cures? Listen, when you read the books of Moses in the Bible, and you read the sanitary code and the dietary code, you’re going to find one of the highest levels of scientific knowledge that you’ll find even to this day. And you’ll not find one medical misconception in Moses’ writings. As a matter of fact, Moses says things that are incredible, like, “The life of the flesh is in the blood” (Lev. 17:11, 14). How did Moses know that this blood is a red river of life? Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The dietary laws excluded such things as pig meat, catfish and shrimp. They taste great, but they raise your cholesterol and have other harmful effects.

In the 14th century the Black Plague was the greatest human disaster that’s ever come. An estimated 60 million people died in the Black Plague in Europe. But let me tell you what brought the Black Plague to a close. It was the Church, and not the doctors. In desperation those leaders in the Church began to read the Word of God. They read Leviticus 13:46, and it spoke of someone who had a plague. And it says, “All the days wherein the plague shall be in him, he shall be defiled. He is unclean. He shall dwell alone outside the camp.” That’s the principle that we use today when we put people in an isolation ward. But friend, they didn’t understand germs. You couldn’t have said, “He has a germ.” They’d say, “What?” They couldn’t say, “He has a virus.” They didn’t understand something that was invisible to the eye. But God taught these people so long ago that principle of isolation and quarantining, and putting that into practice saved millions of lives.

How can I know the Bible is the Word of God? by Adrian Rogers

________________________

 

____

Is the Bible historically accurate? Here are some of the posts I have done in the past on the subject: 1. The Babylonian Chronicleof Nebuchadnezzars Siege of Jerusalem2. Hezekiah’s Siloam Tunnel Inscription. 3. Taylor Prism (Sennacherib Hexagonal Prism)4. Biblical Cities Attested Archaeologically. 5. The Discovery of the Hittites6.Shishak Smiting His Captives7. Moabite Stone8Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III9A Verification of places in Gospel of John and Book of Acts., 9B Discovery of Ebla Tablets10. Cyrus Cylinder11. Puru “The lot of Yahali” 9th Century B.C.E.12. The Uzziah Tablet Inscription13. The Pilate Inscription14. Caiaphas Ossuary14 B Pontius Pilate Part 214c. Three greatest American Archaeologists moved to accept Bible’s accuracy through archaeology.

 The Bible and Archaeology – Is the Bible from God? (Kyle Butt)

______________________

During the 1990′s I actually made it a practice to write famous atheists and scientists that were mentioned by Adrian Rogers and Francis Schaeffer and challenge them with the evidence for the Bible’s historicity and the claims of the gospel. Usually I would send them a cassette tape of Adrian Rogers’ messages “6 reasons I know the Bible is True,” “The Final Judgement,” “Who is Jesus?” and the message by Bill Elliff, “How to get a pure heart.”  I would also send them printed material from the works of Francis Schaeffer and a personal apologetic letter from me addressing some of the issues in their work. My second cassette tape that I sent to both Antony Flew and George Wald was Adrian Rogers’ sermon on evolution and here below you can watch that very sermon on You Tube.   Carl Sagan also took time to correspond with me about a year before he died. 

(Francis Schaeffer pictured below)

Image result for francis schaeffer

Adrian Rogers pictured below

I have posted on Adrian Rogers’ messages on Evolution before but here is a complete message on it.

Evolution: Fact of Fiction? By Adrian Rogers

__

__________

Featured artist is Frank Stella 

Frank Stella: A Retrospective

 

Image result for frank stella art

Frank Stella

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Frank Stella
Born Frank Philip Stella
May 12, 1936 (age 80)
Malden, Massachusetts
Nationality American
Known for Painting, Printmaking, Sculpture, Architecture
Movement Modernism, Minimal art, Abstract expressionism, Geometric abstraction, Abstract Illusionism, Lyrical abstraction, Hard-edge painting, Shaped canvas painting, Color field painting
Awards 1984 Harvard University Charles Eliot Norton lectures

Frank Philip Stella (born May 12, 1936) is an American painter and printmaker, noted for his work in the areas of minimalism and post-painterly abstraction. Stella lives and works in New York.

Biography[edit]

Frank Stella was born in Malden, Massachusetts,[1] to parents of Italian descent. His father was a gynecologist, and his mother was an artistically inclined housewife who attended fashion school and later took up landscape painting.[2]

After attending high school at Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts, where he learned about abstract modernists Josef Albers and Hans Hofmann,[3] he attended Princeton University, where he majored in history and met Darby Bannard and Michael Fried. Early visits to New York art galleries fostered his artistic development, and his work was influenced by the abstract expressionism of Jackson Pollock and Franz Kline. Stella moved to New York in 1958, after his graduation. He is one of the most well-regarded postwar American painters still working today.[citation needed] He is heralded for creating abstract paintings that bear no pictorial illusions or psychological or metaphysical references in twentieth-century painting.[4]

As of 2015, Stella lives in Greenwich Village and keeps an office there but commutes on weekdays to his studio in Rock Tavern, New York.[2]

Work[edit]

Late 1950s and early 1960s[edit]

Upon moving to New York City, he reacted against the expressive use of paint by most painters of the abstract expressionist movement, instead finding himself drawn towards the “flatter” surfaces of Barnett Newman‘s work and the “target” paintings of Jasper Johns. He began to produce works which emphasized the picture-as-object, rather than the picture as a representation of something, be it something in the physical world, or something in the artist’s emotional world. Stella married Barbara Rose, later a well-known art critic, in 1961. Around this time he said that a picture was “a flat surface with paint on it – nothing more”. This was a departure from the technique of creating a painting by first making a sketch. Many of the works are created by simply using the path of the brush stroke, very often using common house paint.

This new aesthetic found expression in a series of new paintings, the Black Paintings (59) in which regular bands of black paint were separated by very thin pinstripes of unpainted canvas. Die Fahne Hoch! (1959) is one such painting. It takes its name (“The Raised Banner” in English) from the first line of the Horst-Wessel-Lied, the anthem of the National Socialist German Workers Party, and Stella pointed out that it is in the same proportions as banners used by that organization. It has been suggested that the title has a double meaning, referring also to Jasper Johns’ paintings of flags. In any case, its emotional coolness belies the contentiousness its title might suggest, reflecting this new direction in Stella’s work. Stella’s art was recognized for its innovations before he was twenty-five. In 1959, several of his paintings were included in “Three Young Americans” at the Allen Memorial Art Museum at Oberlin College, as well as in “Sixteen Americans” at the Museum of Modern Art in New York (60).

From 1960 Stella began to produce paintings in aluminium and copper paint which, in their presentation of regular lines of color separated by pinstripes, are similar to his black paintings. However they use a wider range of colors, and are his first works using shaped canvases (canvases in a shape other than the traditional rectangle or square), often being in L, N, U or T-shapes. These later developed into more elaborate designs, in the Irregular Polygon series (67), for example.

Also in the 1960s, Stella began to use a wider range of colors, typically arranged in straight or curved lines. Later he began his Protractor Series (71) of paintings, in which arcs, sometimes overlapping, within square borders are arranged side-by-side to produce full and half circles painted in rings of concentric color. These paintings are named after circular cities he had visited while in the Middle East earlier in the 1960s. The Irregular Polygon canvases and Protractor series further extended the concept of the shaped canvas.

Late 1960s and early 1970s[edit]

Frank Stella Harran II 1967

Stella began his extended engagement with printmaking in the mid-1960s, working first with master printer Kenneth Tyler at Gemini G.E.L. Stella produced a series of prints during the late 1960s starting with a print called Quathlamba I in 1968. Stella’s abstract prints used lithography, screenprinting, etching and offset lithography.

In 1967, he designed the set and costumes for Scramble, a dance piece by Merce Cunningham. The Museum of Modern Art in New York presented a retrospective of Stella’s work in 1970, making him the youngest artist to receive one.[citation needed] During the following decade, Stella introduced relief into his art, which he came to call “maximalist” painting for its sculptural qualities. The shaped canvases took on even less regular forms in the Eccentric Polygon series, and elements of collage were introduced, pieces of canvas being pasted onto plywood, for example. His work also became more three-dimensional to the point where he started producing large, free-standing metal pieces, which, although they are painted upon, might well be considered sculpture. After introducing wood and other materials in the Polish Village series (73), created in high relief, he began to use aluminum as the primary support for his paintings. As the 1970s and 1980s progressed, these became more elaborate and exuberant. Indeed, his earlier Minimalism [more] became baroque, marked by curving forms, Day-Glo colors, and scrawled brushstrokes. Similarly, his prints of these decades combined various printmaking and drawing techniques. In 1973, he had a print studio installed in his New York house. In 1976, Stella was commissioned by BMW to paint a BMW 3.0 CSL for the second installment in the BMW Art Car Project. He has said of this project, “The starting point for the art cars was racing livery. In the old days there used to be a tradition of identifying a car with its country by color. Now they get a number and they get advertising. It’s a paint job, one way or another. The idea for mine was that it’s from a drawing on graph paper. The graph paper is what it is, a graph, but when it’s morphed over the car’s forms it becomes interesting, and adapting the drawing to the racing car’s forms is interesting. Theoretically it’s like painting on a shaped canvas.”[citation needed]

In 1969, Stella was commissioned to create a logo for the Metropolitan Museum of Art Centennial. Medals incorporating the design were struck to mark the occasion.[5]

1980s and afterward[edit]

Frank Stella La scienza della pigrizia (The Science of Laziness), 1984, oil paint, enamel paint, and alkyd paint on canvas, etched magnesium, aluminum and fiberglass, National Gallery of Art, Washington DC

Stella’s Memantra, 2005, Metropolitan Museum of Art

From the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, Stella created a large body of work that responded in a general way to Herman Melville’s Moby-Dick.[6] During this time, the increasingly deep relief of Stella’s paintings gave way to full three-dimensionality, with sculptural forms derived from cones, pillars, French curves, waves, and decorative architectural elements. To create these works, the artist used collages or maquettes that were then enlarged and re-created with the aids of assistants, industrial metal cutters, and digital technologies.[6] La scienza della pigrizia (The Science of Laziness), from 1984, is an example of Stella’s transition from two-dimensionality to three-dimensionality. It is fabricated from oil paint, enamel paint, and alkyd paint on canvas, etched magnesium, aluminum and fiberglass.

In the 1990s, Stella began making free-standing sculpture for public spaces and developing architectural projects. In 1993, for example, he created the entire decorative scheme for Toronto’s Princess of Wales Theatre, which includes a 10,000-square-foot mural. His 1993 proposal for a Kunsthalle and garden in Dresden did not come to fruition. In 1997, he painted and oversaw the installation of the 5,000-square-foot “Stella Project” which serves as the centerpiece of the theater and lobby of the Moores Opera House located at the Rebecca and John J. Moores School of Music on the campus of the University of Houston, in Houston, TX.[7][8] His aluminum bandshell, inspired by a folding hat from Brazil, was built in downtown Miami in 2001; a monumental Stella sculpture was installed outside the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.

Stella’s wall-hung Scarlatti K Series was triggered by the harpsichord sonatas of Domenico Scarlatti and the writings of the U.S. 20th-century harpsichord virtuoso and musicologist Ralph Kirkpatrick, who made the sonatas widely known. (The title’s “K” refers to Kirkpatrick’s chronology numbers.) Scarlatti wrote more than 500 keyboard sonatas; Stella’s series today includes about 150 works.[9]

From 1978 to 2005, Stella owned the Van Tassell and Kearney Horse Auction Mart building in Manhattan’s East Village and used it as his studio. His nearly 30-year stewardship of the building resulted in the facade being cleaned and restored.[10] After a six-year campaign by the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, in 2012 the historic building was designated a New York City Landmark.[11] After 2005, Stella split his time between his West Village apartment and his Newburgh, New York studio.[12]

Artists’ rights[edit]

Stella had been an advocate of strong copyright protection for artists such as himself. On June 6, 2008, Stella (with Artists Rights Society president Theodore Feder; Stella is a member artist of the Artists Rights Society[13]) published an Op-Ed for The Art Newspaper decrying a proposed U.S. Orphan Works law which “remove[s] the penalty for copyright infringement if the creator of a work, after a diligent search, cannot be located.”

In the Op-Ed, Stella wrote,

The Copyright Office presumes that the infringers it would let off the hook would be those who had made a “good faith, reasonably diligent” search for the copyright holder. Unfortunately, it is totally up to the infringer to decide if he has made a good faith search. Bad faith can be shown only if a rights holder finds out about the infringement and then goes to federal court to determine whether the infringer has failed to conduct an adequate search. Few artists can afford the costs of federal litigation: attorneys’ fees in our country vastly exceed the licensing fee for a typical painting or drawing.

The Copyright Office proposal would have a disproportionately negative, even catastrophic, impact on the ability of painters and illustrators to make a living from selling copies of their work… It is deeply troubling that government should be considering taking away their principal means of making ends meet—their copyrights.[14]

Exhibitions[edit]

Stella’s work was included in several important exhibitions that defined 1960s art[citation needed], among them the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum’s The Shaped Canvas (1965) and Systemic Painting (1966). The Museum of Modern Art in New York presented a retrospective of Stella’s work in 1970.[6] His art has since been the subject of several retrospectives in the United States, Europe, and Japan. In 2012, a retrospective of Stella’s career was shown at the Kunstmuseum Wolfsburg (de).[15]

Collections[edit]

Stella’s work is included in major international collections, including the Menil Collection, Houston; the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Washington, D.C.; San Francisco Museum of Modern Art; National Gallery of Art; the Toledo Museum of Art and the Whitney Museum of American Art, New York; the Portland Art Museum, Oregon; The Hunter Museum, Chattanooga, TN. In 2014, Stella gave his sculpture Adjoeman (2004) as a long-term loan to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.[16]

Recognition[edit]

Among the many honors he has received was an invitation from Harvard University to give the Charles Eliot Norton Lectures in 1984. Calling for a rejuvenation of abstraction by achieving the depth of baroque painting,[17] these six talks were published by Harvard University Press in 1986 under the title Working Space.[18]

In 2009, Frank Stella was awarded the National Medal of Arts by President Barack Obama.[19] In 2011, he received the Lifetime Achievement Award in Contemporary Sculpture by the International Sculpture Center. In 1996 he received an honorary Doctorate from the University of Jena in Jena, Germany, where his large sculptures of the “Hudson River Valley Series” are on permanent display, becoming the second artist to receive this honorary degree after Auguste Rodin in 1906.[20]

Art market[edit]

Stella joined dealer Leo Castelli’s roster of artists in 1959. Since 2014, he has been represented worldwide in an exclusive arrangement shared by Dominique Lévy Gallery and Marianne Boesky.[21][22]

Gallery[edit]

Interviews[edit]

  • Heti, Sheila (November–December 2008). “‘I’m All in Favor of the Shifty Artist'”. The Believer. 6 (9): 40–46.
  • De Antonio, Emile (director), Painters Painting: The New York Art Scene: 1940-1970, 1973. Arthouse films

References[edit]

  1. Jump up^ “Frank Stella Biography, Art, and Analysis of Works”. The Art Story. Retrieved 2012-05-25.
  2. ^ Jump up to:a b Deborah Solomon (September 7, 2015), The Whitney Taps Frank Stella for an Inaugural Retrospective at Its New HomeNew York Times.
  3. Jump up^ Peter Schjeldahl (November 9, 2015), “Big Ideas: a Frank Stella Retrospective”, The New Yorker
  4. Jump up^ Birmingham Museum of Art (2010). Birmingham Museum of Art : guide to the collection. [Birmingham, Ala]: Birmingham Museum of Art. p. 236. ISBN 978-1-904832-77-5.
  5. Jump up^ Finding aid for the George Trescher records related to The Metropolitan Museum of Art Centennial, 1949, 1960-1971 (bulk 1967-1970). The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Retrieved 8 August 2014.
  6. ^ Jump up to:a b c Frank Stella Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York.
  7. Jump up^ About the Stella Project in the Moores Opera House
  8. Jump up^ “Home”. Music.uh.edu. 2012-04-25. Retrieved 2012-05-25.
  9. Jump up^ Karen Wilkin (June 23, 2011), Complementary AbstractionistsWall Street Journal.
  10. Jump up^ 128 East 13th Street [1] Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation.
  11. Jump up^ “Van Tassell & Kearney Auction Mart Designation Report”(PDF). New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. Retrieved 1 October 2014.
  12. Jump up^ Sightlines: Frank Stella Wall Street Journal, March 15, 2010.
  13. Jump up^ Artists Rights Society’s List of Most Frequently Requested Artists Archived July 2, 2015, at the Wayback Machine.
  14. Jump up^ Frank Stella, “The proposed new law is a nightmare for artists,” Archived October 7, 2008, at the Wayback Machine. The Art Newspaper, June 6, 2008.
  15. Jump up^ Rhodes, David (November 2012). “Frank Stella: The Retrospective, Works 1958-2012”. The Brooklyn Rail.
  16. Jump up^ Deborah Vankin (July 7, 2014), Abstract Frank Stella sculpture ‘Adjoeman’ joins Cedars-Sinai artworks Los Angeles Times.
  17. Jump up^ John Russell (March 18, 1984), Frank Stella at Harvard – The Artist as Lecturer New York Times.
  18. Jump up^ Frank Stella, Working Space (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986), ISBN 0-674-95961-2. Listing at Harvard University Press website.
  19. Jump up^ White House Announces 2009 National Medal of Arts Recipients
  20. Jump up^ Frank Stella in Jena
  21. Jump up^ Carol Vogel (March 20, 2014), Seasonal Changes New York Times.
  22. Jump up^ Lévy, Dominique. “Artists”. Dominique Lévy Gallery. Retrieved 14 April 2015.

More references

External links[edit]

Related posts:

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 135 H. J. Blackham Part C Featured artist is Richard Anuszkiewicz

________     H. J. Blackham H. J. Blackham, (31 March 1903 – 23 January 2009), was a leading and widely respected British humanist for most of his life. As a young man he worked in farming and as a teacher. He found his niche as a leader in the Ethical Union, which he steadfastly […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 134 H.J.Blackham Part B (Featured artist is Richard M. Loving)

H.J.Blackham pictured below: I had to pleasure of corresponding with Paul Kurtz in the 1990’s and he like H. J. Blackham firmly believed that religion was needed to have a basis for morals. At H. J. Blackham’s funeral in 2009 these words were read from Paul Kurtz: Paul Kurtz Founder and Chair, Prometheus Books and the […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 133 A Portion of my 1994 letter to H. J. Blackham on the 10th Anniversary of Francis Schaeffer’s passing (Featured artist is Billy Al Bengston )

H. J. Blackham pictured below:   On May 15, 1994 on the 10th anniversary of the passing of Francis Schaeffer I sent a letter to H.J. Blackham and here is a portion of that letter below: I have enclosed a cassette tape by Adrian Rogers and it includes  a story about  Charles Darwin‘s journey from […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 132 Part D Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Ronald Davis )

  I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December 27, 2015 at the age of 92. Who were the artists who influenced […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 131 Part C Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Janet Fish )

__ I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December 27, 2015 at the age of 92.       Who were the […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 130 Part B Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Art Green )

Andy, Ellsworth Kelly, Richard Koshalek and unidentified guest, 1980s I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December 27, 2015 at the age […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 129 Part A Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Sherrie Levine )

How Should We Then Live – Episode 8 – The Age of Fragmentation   I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 128 Will Provine, Determinism, Part F (Featured artist is Pierre Soulages )

Today I am bringing this series on William Provine to an end.  Will Provine’s work was cited by  Francis Schaeffer  in his book WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? I noted: I was sad to learn of Dr. Provine’s death. William Ball “Will” Provine (February 19, 1942 – September 1, 2015) He grew up an […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 127 Will Provine, Killer of the myth of Optimistic Humanism Part E (Featured artist is Jim Dine )

___ Setting the record straight was Will Provine’s widow Gail when she stated, “[Will] did not believe in an ULTIMATE meaning in life (i.e. God’s plan), but he did believe in proximate meaning (i.e. relationships with people — friendship and especially LOVE🙂 ). So one’s existence is ultimately senseless and useless, but certainly not to those […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 126 Will Provine, Killer of the myth of Optimistic Humanism Part D (Featured artists are Elena and Olivia Ceballos )

I was sad when I learned of Will Provine’s death. He was a very engaging speaker on the subject of Darwinism and I think he correctly realized what the full ramifications are when accepting evolution. This is the fourth post I have done on Dr. Provine and the previous ones are these links, 1st, 2nd […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY Woody Allen CRISIS IN SIX SCENES

______________

Woody Allen CRISIS IN SIX SCENES

Crisis in Six Scenes S01E01 CZ titulky

Something about television brings out the nostalgist in Woody Allen (well, y’know, even more than usual), and understandably – it’s a medium inextricably tied to his own early days. He got his start as a staff writer for The Colgate Comedy Hour, Sid Caesar specials, and sitcoms like The Gary Moore Show; in his stand-up and early (comic) filmmaking days, he was a fixture on Jack Paar, Ed Sullivan, Dick Cavett, and Merv Griffin’s shows, and even had a couple of prime-time specials. But after his Nixon-baiting Men of Crisis: The Harvey Wallinger Story was yanked from PBS, he swore off the medium, and mostly stuck to his guns. His last major television project was a 1994 TV movie adaptation of his hit ‘60s play Don’t Drink the Water, in which he was now old enough to play the harried patriarch confounded by his times. [13]

-Woody Allen’s six-episode miniseries for Amazon, “Crisis in Six Scenes,” which runs just less than two and a half hours in total, is, in effect, his “American Pastoral.” Like Philip Roth’s 1997 novel, it’s a vision (a comedic one, where Roth’s is tragic) of a liberal suburban household, in the late nineteen-sixties, that’s thrown into turmoil by a young woman who commits an act of political terrorism. It has the virtues and the faults of Allen’s later films—which is to say that his ideas come to the fore in sharp focus, sketched with clear and decisive lines, but sometimes the sketchiness detaches them from the context of lived experience and turns them merely assertive and hermetic. [1]

-In “Crisis,” Allen writes himself back, in current form, into an time in which he was actually already anachronistic. Allen made his great breakthrough, with “Annie Hall,” not at the beginning of an era but at its end. He was already older than forty; he had twenty years of show biz behind him, and his nineteen-sixties weren’t an age of protest and activism but of trying to establish himself, tooth and nail, as the filmmaker that he had decided to become. “Crisis in Six Scenes” starkly conveys the wistful—yet not regretful—sense that his sixties were secondhand and spectatorial. [1]

-Above all, however, the core of the series is the secondhand experience not of the sixties as action but of the sixties as political rhetoric. It isn’t only Alan and Kay who are transformed by Lennie’s presence. Kay also delivers the political literature to the members of her book club, mainly elderly women, who become comically enthusiastic acolytes of violent revolution, spouting Mao’s aphorisms and eagerly, if obliviously, anticipating bloodshed. [1]

-This readiness of many people to fall for the virtuous-sounding but hollow, reckless, dangerous, and destructive rhetoric of dictatorial revolutionaries is the very through-line of the series. [1]

-Allen presents his Sid as the one sane man who, despite—or rather, because of—his neurotic inhibitions and practical artistic ambitions and ideals, remains invulnerable to such flights of grandiose and vapid thinking. As a portrait of the sixties, this relentless satire of revolutionary action serves to justify the course of Allen’s own ideas and activity, even as he hints at admiration for the fervor and daring of the revolutionaries themselves [1]

Related posts:

WOODY WEDNESDAY Settling into a hotel bar in Soho after a long day shooting a film for Woody Allen in the Bronx, Justin Timberlake wastes no time ordering the first of several Vesper martinis. “I was terrified all day today, dude,”

___________ Justin Timberlake Talks ‘Trolls,’ Family Life and His New Album With Pharrell Williams Andrew Barker Senior Features Writer@barkerrant TOM MUNRO FOR VARIETY NOVEMBER 1, 2016 | 10:00AM PT Settling into a hotel bar in Soho after a long day shooting a film for Woody Allen in the Bronx, Justin Timberlake wastes no time ordering […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY Woody Allen’s 81st Birthday

_ Woody Allen – standup – ’65 – RARE! Happy 81st Birthday, Woody Allen December 2, 2016 1 Comment Woody Allen turns 81 today. And he shows no signs of slowing down. Allen spent his 80th year being remarkably prolific, even by his own standards. The end of 2015 saw that year’s film, Irrational Man, […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY Everything We Know About Woody Allen’s 2017 Film With Kate Winslet And Justin Timberlake October 16, 2016

  _ Everything We Know About Woody Allen’s 2017 Film With Kate Winslet And Justin Timberlake October 16, 2016 3 Comments Woody Allen has, it seems, wrapped production on his 2017 Film. The new film stars Kate Winlset and Justin Timberlake. And despite some very public days of shooting, We still don’t know that much […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY At 79, Woody Allen Says There’s Still Time To Do His Best Work JULY 29, 2015 5:03 PM ET

_____________ Woody Allen – The Atheist At 79, Woody Allen Says There’s Still Time To Do His Best Work JULY 29, 2015 5:03 PM ET When asked about his major shortcomings, filmmaker Woody Allen says, “I’m lazy and an imperfectionist.” Thibault Camus/AP Woody Allen is a prolific filmmaker — he’s been releasing films pretty much […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY Midnight in Paris: TAP’s Movie of the Month for June 2015 JUNE 1, 2015 by TAP Adventures

Midnight in Paris: TAP’s Movie of the Month for June 2015 JUNE 1, 2015 by TAP Adventures Each month in TAP, we select a Movie of the Month to help prepare our students for their overseas trip. This month we’re starting to prepare for our 2016 adventure in France and the Benelux countries, so we’ve selected […]

“Woody Wednesday” An Interview with Woody Allen Woody Allen’s World: Whatever Works Robert E. Lauder April 15, 2010 – 2:31pm

This interview   below reveals Woody Allen’s nihilistic views and reminds me of his best movie which is  CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS!!!! Crimes and Misdemeanors 1989 Woody Allen Woody Allen Crimes and Misdemeanors Nihilism Nietzsche’s Death of God An Interview with Woody Allen Woody Allen’s World: Whatever Works Robert E. Lauder April 15, 2010 – 2:31pm Woody […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY Woody’s Cold Comforts Robert E. Lauder April 19, 2010

Top 10 Woody Allen Movies   Woody’s Cold Comforts Robert E. LauderApril 19, 2010 – 1:36pm Friends have often asked me about my interest in the films of Woody Allen: Why is a Catholic priest such an ardent admirer of the work of an avowed atheist, an artist who time and again has insisted on […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY New bio reassesses Woody Allen at 80 James Endrst , Special for USA TODAY2:03 p.m. EST November 7, 2015

Woody Allen & Parker Posey Red-Carpet Interviews for ‘Irrational Man’ New bio reassesses Woody Allen at 80 James Endrst , Special for USA TODAY2:03 p.m. EST November 7, 2015 Woody: The Biography by  David Evanier  (St. Martin’s Press) in Biography Buy Now USA TODAY Rating Woody Allen turns 80 on Dec. 1 and David Evanier has […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY A Handy Guide to All the Philosophers Referenced in Irrational Man by Eliza Berman July 17, 2015

___ Existentialism and the Meaningful Life [The Common Room] Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR A Handy Guide to All the Philosophers Referenced in Irrational Man Eliza Berman @lizabeaner July 17, 2015 David Livingston–Getty ImagesJoaquin Phoenix and Emma Stone attend the premiere of “Irrational Man” in Los Angeles on July 9, 2015. Leave it […]

Woody Wednesday All 47 Woody Allen movies – ranked from worst to best Part H

Woody Wednesday All 47 Woody Allen movies – ranked from worst to best (L-R): Annie Hall, Sleeper and To Rome With Love Robbie Collin, Film Critic Tim Robey, Film Critic 12 October 2016 • 2:55pm Annie Hall or Bananas? Blue Jasmine or Sleeper? Our critics Robbie Collin and Tim Robey rank all 47 Woody Allen movies […]

___________

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Part 121 Jared Diamond, UCLA, Geography Dept, “So explanation I would suggest is an early function, maybe one of the original functions of religion”

 

On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said:

…Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975

and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.

Harry Kroto

I have attempted to respond to all of Dr. Kroto’s friends arguments and I have posted my responses one per week for over a year now. Here are some of my earlier posts:

Arif AhmedHaroon Ahmed,  Jim Al-Khalili, Sir David AttenboroughMark Balaguer, Horace Barlow, Michael BateSir Patrick BatesonSimon Blackburn, Colin Blakemore, Ned BlockPascal BoyerPatricia ChurchlandAaron CiechanoverNoam Chomsky, Brian CoxPartha Dasgupta,  Alan Dershowitz, Frank DrakeHubert Dreyfus, John DunnBart Ehrman, Mark ElvinRichard Ernst, Stephan Feuchtwang, Robert FoleyDavid Friend,  Riccardo GiacconiIvar Giaever , Roy GlauberRebecca GoldsteinDavid J. Gross,  Brian Greene, Susan GreenfieldStephen F Gudeman,  Alan Guth, Jonathan HaidtTheodor W. Hänsch, Brian Harrison,  Stephen HawkingHermann Hauser, Robert HindeRoald Hoffmann,  Bruce HoodGerard ‘t HooftCaroline HumphreyNicholas Humphrey,  Herbert Huppert,  Gareth Stedman Jones, Steve JonesShelly KaganMichio Kaku,  Stuart KauffmanMasatoshi Koshiba,  Lawrence KraussHarry Kroto, George Lakoff,  Rodolfo LlinasElizabeth Loftus,  Alan MacfarlaneDan McKenzie,  Mahzarin BanajiPeter MillicanMarvin MinskyLeonard Mlodinow,  P.Z.Myers,   Yujin NagasawaAlva NoeDouglas Osheroff, David Parkin,  Jonathan Parry, Roger Penrose,  Saul PerlmutterHerman Philipse,  Carolyn PorcoRobert M. PriceVS RamachandranLisa RandallLord Martin ReesColin RenfrewAlison Richard,  C.J. van Rijsbergen,  Oliver Sacks, John SearleMarcus du SautoySimon SchafferJ. L. Schellenberg,   Lee Silver Peter Singer,  Walter Sinnott-ArmstrongRonald de Sousa, Victor StengerJohn SulstonBarry Supple,   Leonard Susskind, Raymond TallisMax TegmarkNeil deGrasse Tyson,  Martinus J. G. Veltman, Craig Venter.Alexander Vilenkin, Sir John Walker, James D. WatsonFrank WilczekSteven Weinberg, and  Lewis Wolpert,

____________

Jared Diamond

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jared Diamond
Jared diamond.jpg
Born Jared Mason Diamond
September 10, 1937 (age 77)
Boston, Massachusetts
Residence United States
Citizenship American
Fields Physiology, biophysics,ornithology, environmentalism,history, ecology, geography,evolutionary biology andanthropology
Institutions University of California, Los Angeles
Alma mater
Thesis Concentrating activity of the gall-bladder (1961)
Notable awards

Jared Diamond in London, February 2013

Jared Mason Diamond (born September 10, 1937) is an American scientist and author best known for his popular science books The Third Chimpanzee (1991), Guns, Germs, and Steel (1997, awarded aPulitzer Prize), Collapse (2005) and The World Until Yesterday (2012). Originally trained in physiology, Diamond’s work is known for drawing from a variety of fields, including anthropology, ecology, geography, and evolutionary biology. As of 2013, he is Professor of Geography at the University of California, Los Angeles.[1][2] He has been described as “America’s best-known geographer“.[3]

In  the third video below in the 125th clip in this series are his words and  my response is below them. 

50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 1)

Another 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 2

A Further 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 3)

QUOTE:

In short, explanation is a function of religion which I think was maximized in early religions in tribal societies which has decreased and even disappeared in recent times in some societies. So explanation I would suggest is an early function, maybe one of the original functions of  religion.

Basically I don’t see this as a groundbreaking statement. It is my view that God created the world and Romans 1 tells us that everyone knows in their heart that God exists. Below is a letter I wrote to Dr. Diamond and I did mention in passing his quotation.

April 7, 2015

Dr. Jared Diamond, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles,

Dear Dr. Diamond,

I saw you on the program CLOSER TO TRUTH and  that is what me started reading your material. Let me start off by saying that this is not the first time that I have written you. Earlier I shared several letters of correspondence I had with Carl Sagan, and Antony Flew. Both men were strong believers in evolution as you are today. Instead of talking to you about their views today I wanted to discuss the views of you and Charles Darwin. 

TWO THINGS MADE ME THINK OF YOU RECENTLY. On April 5, 2015 at the Fellowship Bible Church Easter morning service in Little Rock, Arkansas our pastor Mark Henry described DOUBTING THOMAS and that description made me think of you.  Moreover, your skeptical view towards  Christianity reminds me of CHARLES DARWIN’S growing doubts throughout his life on these same theological issues such as skepticism in reaction to the claims of the Bible!!!

I’m an evangelical Christian and you are a secularist but I am sure we can both agree with the apostle Paul when he said in First Corinthians 15 that if Christ did not rise from the dead then Christians are to be most pited!!!! I attended Easter services this week and this issue came up and Mark Henry asserted that there is plenty of evidence that indicates that the Bible is historically accurate. Did you know that CHARLES DARWIN thought about this very subject quite a lot?

I just finished reading the online addition of the book Darwin, Francis ed. 1892. Charles Darwin: his life told in an autobiographical chapter, and in a selected series of his published letters [abridged edition]. London: John Murray. There are several points that Charles Darwin makes in this book that were very wise, honest, logical, shocking and some that were not so wise. The Christian Philosopher Francis Schaeffer once said of Darwin’s writings, “Darwin in his autobiography and in his letters showed that all through his life he never really came to a quietness concerning the possibility that chance really explained the situation of the biological world. You will find there is much material on this [from Darwin] extended over many manufacturers years that constantly he was wrestling with this problem.”

I saw this QUOTE from you on You Tube:

In short, explanation is a function of religion which I think was maximized in early religions in tribal societies which has decreased and even disappeared in recent times in some societies. So explanation I would suggest is an early function, maybe one of the original functions of  religion. 

Quotes like this indicate to me that you are a DOUBTING THOMAS type. YOU MAY FIND IT INTERESTING THAT CHARLES DARWIN WAS ALSO INTERESTED IN THE HISTORICAL ASPECT OF THE BIBLE. When I read the book  Charles Darwin: his life told in an autobiographical chapter, and in a selected series of his published letters, I also read  a commentary on it by Francis Schaeffer and I wanted to both  quote some of Charles Darwin’s own words to you and then include the comments of Francis Schaeffer on those words. I have also enclosed a CD with two messages from Adrian Rogers and Bill Elliff concerning Darwinism.

Charles Darwin observed:

“But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels.

Francis Schaeffer commented:

This is very sad. He lies on his bunk and the Beagle tosses and turns and he makes daydreams, and his dreams and hopes are that someone would find in Pompeii or some place like this, an old manuscript by a distinguished Roman that would put his stamp of authority on it, which would be able to show that Christ existed. This is undoubtedly what he is talking about. Darwin gave up this hope with great difficulty. I think he didn’t want to come to the position where his accepted presuppositions were driving him. He didn’t want to give it up, just as an older man he understood where it would lead and “man can do his duty.” Instinctively this of brains understood where this whole thing was going to eventually go…

SINCE CHARLES DARWIN’S DEATH WE NOW HAVE LOTS OF HISTORICAL RECORDS AND MUCH EVIDENCE FROM THE FIELD OF ARCHAEOLOGY THAT SHOW THE BIBLE IS HISTORICALLY ACCURATE.

**************TAKE TIME TO CONSIDER THIS EVIDENCE BELOW********************

I  have been amazed at the prophecies in the Bible that have been fulfilled in history, and also many of the historical details in the Bible have been confirmed by archaeology too. One of the most amazing is the prediction that the Jews would be brought back and settle in Jerusalem again. Another prophecy in Psalms 22 describes the Messiah dying on a cross  almost 1000 years before the Romans came up with this type of punishment.

Many times it has been alleged that the author of the Book of Daniel was from a later period but how did a later author know these 5 HISTORICAL FACTS? How did he know [1] that Belshazzar was ruling during the last few years of the Babylonian Empire when the name “Belshazzar” was lost to history until 1853 when it was uncovered in the monuments? [2] The author also knew that the Babylonians executed individuals by casting them into fire, and that the Persians threw the condemned to the lions. [3] He knew  the practice in the 6th Century was to mention first the Medes, then the Persians and not the other way around. [4] Plus he knew the laws made by Persian kings could not be revoked and [5] he knew that in the sixth century B.C., Susa was in the province of Elam (Dan. 8:2). Of course, the Book of Daniel (2:37-42) clearly predicted the rise of the 4 world empires in the correct order of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome.

One of the top 10 posts on my blog on this next subject concerning Tyre.   John MacArthur went through every detail of the prophecy concerning Tyre and how history shows the Bible prophecy was correct.  Sagan said he had taken a look at Old Testament prophecy and it did not impress him because it was too vague.

HOW CAN ANYONE SAY THAT THIS FOLLOWING PROPHECY CONCERNING TYRE IS “TOO VAGUE?”

Below is an outline from a sermon from Dr. John MacArthur

Photo of John MacArthur

________________

John MacArthur on the amazing fulfilled prophecy on Tyre and how it was fulfilled by historical events.

LESSON

I. BIBLICAL PROPHECY CONCERNING TYRE (Ezekiel 26:1–28:19)

A. The Forecast

1. The specifics

a) That King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon would destroy the mainland city of Tyre (26:7-8).

b) That many nations would rise up against Tyre. These nations would come like waves of the sea, one after another (26:3- 4).

c) That Tyre will be made like a flat rock (26:4, 14).

d) That fisherman will dry their nets there (26:5, 14).

e) That the rubble of the city would be cast into the sea (26:12).

f) That Tyre would never be rebuilt (26:14).

2. The setting

Tyre was a great city. It was one of the largest and most powerful cities of Phoenicia, which is modern day Lebanon.

It was well fortified. A great wall protected the city from land attacks while their world-renowned fleet protected them from attack by sea.

Tyre was a flourishing city during the time when Joshua led Israel into the Promised Land. King Hiram, who began his reign during the rule of David, offered David cedars from Tyre to build his palace. He also loaned David his artisans to craft parts of the great palace (1 Chron. 14:1). Hiram also helped Solomon build the Temple by floating cedars down the shoreline to be picked up and hauled to Jerusalem (2 Chron. 2:16). So Tyre was a great city, and both David and Solomon looked to it for aid.

B. The Fulfillment

1. The prophetic call

a) To Nebuchadnezzar

Not long after the prophecy given by Ezekiel, Nebuchadnezzar did exactly what had been predicted–he laid siege against the city in 585 B.C. For thirteen years Nebuchadnezzar cut off the flow of supplies into the city. In 537 B.C. he finally succeeded in breaking the gates down, but found the city almost empty.

During the thirteen-year siege, the people of Tyre moved all their possessions by ship to an island one-half mile offshore. So Nebuchadnezzar gained no plunder (Ezek. 29:17- 20). Although he destroyed the mainland city (Ezek. 26:8), the new city offshore continued to flourish for 250 years. The prophecy of Ezekiel 26:12–“they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water”–remained unfulfilled.

b) To Alexander the Great

At age twenty-two, Alexander the Great came east conquering the known world with an army of between thirty and forty thousand men. Having defeated the Persians under Darius III, Alexander was on the march toward Egypt.

(1) The dilemma

Alexander arrived in the Phoenician territory and demanded that the cities open their gates to him. The citizens of Tyre refused, feeling they were secure on their island with their superior fleet.

(2) The decision

Realizing he did not have a fleet that could match Tyre’s, Alexander decided to build a causeway to the island using the ruins from the mainland city. It was about two hundred feet wide. The prophet said that the city would be thrown into the water, and that’s exactly what happened.

(3) The details

Arrian, a Greek historian, wrote about the overthrow of Tyre and how it was accomplished (The Campaigns of Alexander [New York: Penquin, 1958], pp. 132-43). The fortification of Tyre resembled Alcatraz. The city sat offshore like a rock with walls that came down to the edge of the water. Alexander set out to build the only means to approach the city–a land peninsula. Soldiers started pitching rubble into the water, leveling it off as they went so they could march on it. The water got deeper as they approached the island, and to make their task even more difficult, the people of Tyre bombarded them with missiles.

Werner Keller in The Bible as History tells us that to safeguard the operation, Alexander built mobile shields called “tortoises” (New York: Bantam, 1956], p. 361). Knowing that when they reached the city they would have to scale the walls, Alexander built “Hele-poleis,” which were mobile siege towers 160 foot high. The idea was to roll these structures across the causeway and push them up against the walls. A drawbridge on the front of the towers enabled the soldiers to march across the top of the walls and into the city.

Alexander’s men were under constant attack from people within the city and from the Tyrian navy. Realizing that he needed ships to defend his flanks, Alexander returned to the cities he had conquered and demanded their assistance. That fulfilled the prophecy that God “will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth its waves to come up” (Ezek. 26:3).

(4) The destruction

Alexander’s plan succeeded. Eight thousand people were slain and thirty thousand were sold into slavery. It took Alexander seven months to conquer Tyre. The causeway he built can be seen to this day.

2. The prophetic result

How did Ezekiel know all those things would happen? The only explanation is he expressed the mind of God. Historian Philip Myers said, “Alexander the Great reduced it [Tyre] to ruins (332 B.C.). She recovered in a measure from this blow, but never regained the place she had previously held in the world. The larger part of the site … is now as bare as the top of a rock–a place where the fishermen that still frequent the spot spread their nets to dry” (General History for Colleges and High Schools [Boston: Ginn and Co., 1889], p. 55). That fulfills the prophecies of Ezekiel 26:4-5, 14. The island city was repopulated, later to be destroyed by the Moslems in A.D. 1281. However, God said the mainland city would never be rebuilt–and it never has. Jerusalem has been rebuilt many times but Tyre will never be rebuilt because a prophet in Babylon said twenty-five centuries ago, “Thou shalt be built no more” (Ezek. 26:14).

___________________

ANY HISTORIAN CAN HAVE ACCESS TO ALL OF THESE RECORDS. WHY NOT TAKE A FEW MOMENTS AND CHECK OUT THESE FACTS YOURSELF? As a secularist you believe that it is sad indeed that millions of Christians are hoping for heaven but no heaven is waiting for them. Paul took a close look at this issue too:

I Corinthians 15 asserts:

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

I sent you a CD that starts off with the song DUST IN THE WIND by Kerry Livgren of the group KANSAS which was a hit song in 1978 when it rose to #6 on the charts because so many people connected with the message of the song. It included these words, “All we do, crumbles to the ground though we refuse to see, Dust in the Wind, All we are is dust in the wind, Don’t hang on, Nothing lasts forever but the Earth and Sky, It slips away, And all your money won’t another minute buy.”

Kerry Livgren himself said that he wrote the song because he saw where man was without a personal God in the picture. Solomon pointed out in the Book of Ecclesiastes that those who believe that God doesn’t exist must accept three things. FIRST, death is the end and SECOND, chance and time are the only guiding forces in this life.  FINALLY, power reigns in this life and the scales are never balanced. The Christian can  face death and also confront the world knowing that it is not determined by chance and time alone and finally there is a judge who will balance the scales.

Both Kerry Livgren and the bass player Dave Hope of Kansas became Christians eventually. Kerry Livgren first tried Eastern Religions and Dave Hope had to come out of a heavy drug addiction. I was shocked and elated to see their personal testimony on The 700 Club in 1981 and that same  interview can be seen on You Tube today. Livgren lives in Topeka, Kansas today where he teaches “Diggers,” a Sunday school class at Topeka Bible ChurchDAVE HOPE is the head of Worship, Evangelism and Outreach at Immanuel Anglican Church in Destin, Florida.

The answer to find meaning in life is found in putting your faith and trust in Jesus Christ. The Bible is true from cover to cover and can be trusted.

Thank you again for your time and I know how busy you are.

Everette Hatcher, everettehatcher@gmail.com, http://www.thedailyhatch.org, cell ph 501-920-5733, Box 23416, LittleRock, AR 72221, United States

Is the Bible historically accurate? Here are some of the posts I have done in the past on the subject: 1. The Babylonian Chronicleof Nebuchadnezzars Siege of Jerusalem2. Hezekiah’s Siloam Tunnel Inscription. 3. Taylor Prism (Sennacherib Hexagonal Prism)4. Biblical Cities Attested Archaeologically. 5. The Discovery of the Hittites6.Shishak Smiting His Captives7. Moabite Stone8Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III9A Verification of places in Gospel of John and Book of Acts., 9B Discovery of Ebla Tablets10. Cyrus Cylinder11. Puru “The lot of Yahali” 9th Century B.C.E.12. The Uzziah Tablet Inscription13. The Pilate Inscription14. Caiaphas Ossuary14 B Pontius Pilate Part 214c. Three greatest American Archaeologists moved to accept Bible’s accuracy through archaeology.

You can hear DAVE HOPE and Kerry Livgren’s stories from this youtube link:

(part 1 ten minutes)

(part 2 ten minutes)

Kansas – Dust in the Wind (Official Video)

Uploaded on Nov 7, 2009

Pre-Order Miracles Out of Nowhere now at http://www.miraclesoutofnowhere.com

About the film:
In 1973, six guys in a local band from America’s heartland began a journey that surpassed even their own wildest expectations, by achieving worldwide superstardom… watch the story unfold as the incredible story of the band KANSAS is told for the first time in the DVD Miracles Out of Nowhere.

_____________________________

Adrian Rogers on Darwinism

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Related posts:

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 52 THE BEATLES (Part D, There is evidence that the Beatles may have been exposed to Francis Schaeffer!!!) (Feature on artist Anna Margaret Rose Freeman )

______________   George Harrison Swears & Insults Paul and Yoko Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds- The Beatles The Beatles:   I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 51 THE BEATLES (Part C, List of those on cover of Stg.Pepper’s ) (Feature on artist Raqib Shaw )

  The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA Uploaded on Nov 29, 2010 The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA. The Beatles:   I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 50 THE BEATLES (Part B, The Psychedelic Music of the Beatles) (Feature on artist Peter Blake )

__________________   Beatles 1966 Last interview I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. In this […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 49 THE BEATLES (Part A, The Meaning of Stg. Pepper’s Cover) (Feature on artist Mika Tajima)

_______________ The Beatles documentary || A Long and Winding Road || Episode 5 (This video discusses Stg. Pepper’s creation I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 48 “BLOW UP” by Michelangelo Antonioni makes Philosophic Statement (Feature on artist Nancy Holt)

_______________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: _____________________ I have included the 27 minute  episode THE AGE OF NONREASON by Francis Schaeffer. In that video Schaeffer noted,  ” Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band…for a time it became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. It expressed the essence of their lives, thoughts and their feelings.” How Should […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 47 Woody Allen and Professor Levy and the death of “Optimistic Humanism” from the movie CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS Plus Charles Darwin’s comments too!!! (Feature on artist Rodney Graham)

Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 ___________________________________ Today I will answer the simple question: IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN OPTIMISTIC SECULAR HUMANIST THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR AN AFTERLIFE? This question has been around for a long time and you can go back to the 19th century and read this same […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 46 Friedrich Nietzsche (Featured artist is Thomas Schütte)

____________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: __________ Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” , episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”, episode 8 […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 45 Woody Allen “Reason is Dead” (Feature on artists Allora & Calzadilla )

Love and Death [Woody Allen] – What if there is no God? [PL] ___________ _______________ How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason) #02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer 10 Worldview and Truth Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100 Francis Schaeffer […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 44 The Book of Genesis (Featured artist is Trey McCarley )

___________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ____________________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?) Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro) Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1) Dr. Francis Schaeffer […]

__

MUSIC MONDAY Aftermath (The Rolling Stones album)

_

Mother’s Little Helper The Rolling Stones

Aftermath (The Rolling Stones album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aftermath
RSAftermathUK.jpg
Studio album by The Rolling Stones
Released 15 April 1966
Recorded 3–8 December 1965, 6–9 March 1966
Studio RCA Studios, Hollywood, California
Genre Rock, pop
Length 53:20
Label Decca (UK)
Producer Andrew Loog Oldham
The Rolling Stones British chronology
Out of Our Heads
(1965)
Aftermath
(1966)
Between the Buttons
(1967)

Aftermath, released April 1966 by Decca Records, is the fourth British studio album by the Rolling Stones. It was released in the United States in June 1966 by London Records as their sixth American album. The album is considered an artistic breakthrough for the band: it is the first to consist entirely of Mick Jagger/Keith Richards compositions, while Brian Jones played a variety of instruments not usually associated with their music, including sitar, Appalachian dulcimer,[1] marimbas, and Japanese koto, as well as guitar, harmonica and keyboards, though much of the music is still rooted in Chicago electric blues. It was the first Rolling Stones album to be recorded entirely in the US, at the RCA Studios in California, and their first album released in true stereo. It is also one of the earliest Rock albums to eclipse the 50-minute mark, and contains one of the earliest Rock songs to eclipse the 10-minute mark (“Goin’ Home”).

In August 2002 both editions of Aftermath were reissued in a new remastered CD and SACD digipak by ABKCO Records, with the UK version containing an otherwise unavailable stereo mix of “Mother’s Little Helper”.[2] In the same year the US edition of Aftermath was ranked No. 109 on the List of Rolling Stone’s 500 Greatest Albums of All Time.[3] The album was included in Robert Dimery’s 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die.[4]

Creation[edit]

According to Bill Wyman in Rolling With The Stones, the album was originally conceived as the soundtrack for the never filmed feature Back, Behind And In Front.[citation needed] The whole deal fell off, though, when Jagger met with the potential director, Nicholas Ray, but didn’t like him. These recording sessions were also very busy for the group, as they recorded 21 Jagger/Richards compositions while in Los Angeles. They were also much more comfortable during that album’s sessions, as they had room and time for experimenting and polishing the arrangements, something they weren’t able to do on earlier albums due to the “rushed” way these sessions were done.

The main engineer for the album was also pivotal in making the group feel comfortable during the sessions as he, according to Wyman, let them experiment with instrumentals and teaming up with session musicians like Jack Nitzsche to variegate their sound. Wyman also stated that he and Brian Jones would pick up instruments that were in the studio and experiment with various sounds for each song. This album is also notable for being the first LP to feature completely original material for the group, as Jagger and Richards were growing not only as songwriters, but as arrangers as well. In 2003, Jagger recalled that Richards was writing a lot of melodies and the group would perform them in a number of different ways which were mainly thought out in the studio, as opposed to the strict arranging and recording planning of other groups of the epoch.

Brian Jones was very important in shaping the album’s tone and arrangements, as he experimented with a vast array of ethnic instruments such as the marimba, sitar, Appalachian dulcimer, and organ, which contrasted with the folk, pop, country, blues and rock compositions, thus resulting in a very diverse melting pot of musical styles. Aftermath was also the first record on which the majority of the guitar playing was left to Richards due to Jones’ multi-instrumentalism, a habit that served as an intense training period for Richards’ craftmanship which culminated in his playing almost all of the guitars on Let It Bleed.[5]

Critical reception[edit]

At the time of its release, the album was well received, with Keith Altman of the New Musical Express stating that “those masterminds behind the electric machines – The Rolling Stones – have produced the finest value for money ever on their new LP”.[5] In retrospect the album is considered a milestone in the group’s career, with Allmusic writer Ritchie Unterberg giving it five stars, and praising the combination of different influences found there, but nevertheless opining that “some of the material is fairly ho-hum, to be honest, as Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were still prone to inconsistent songwriting; “Goin’ Home,” an 11-minute blues jam, was remarkable more for its barrier-crashing length than its content”.

Professional ratings
Review scores
Source Rating
Allmusic (UK) 5/5 stars[6]
Allmusic (US) 5/5 stars[7]
Blender 5/5 stars[8]

Sputnikmusic has an aggregate score of 4/5 out of 376 votes, while the feature review states that the album is recommended for fans as well as newcomers to the group.[9] On its top 10 Rolling Stones albums list, NMElisted Aftermath at no.6, while stating that “1966’s ‘Aftermath’ saw the Stones at once rejecting and redefining rock’n’roll lore. The first all-originals Stones album, it’s so classic-packed their reputation as sub-Beatles hopefuls never recovered”[10]

Release history[edit]

As with all the Stones pre-1967 LPs, different editions were released in the UK and the US. This was a common feature of British pop albums at that time—the same practice was applied to all the Beatles albums prior to Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Heart’s Club Band—because UK albums typically did not include tracks that had already been released as singles.

British version[edit]

The original British version of Aftermath was issued in April 1966 as a fourteen-track LP. Issued between the non-LP single releases of “19th Nervous Breakdown” and “Paint It Black“, Aftermath was a major hit in the UK, spending eight weeks at No. 1 on the UK album chart.

Track listing[edit]

All tracks written by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards.

Side one
No. Title Length
1. Mother’s Little Helper 2:45
2. Stupid Girl 2:56
3. Lady Jane 3:08
4. Under My Thumb 3:41
5. “Doncha Bother Me” 2:41
6. Goin’ Home 11:13
Side two
No. Title Length
7. “Flight 505” 3:27
8. “High and Dry” 3:08
9. Out of Time 5:37
10. “It’s Not Easy” 2:56
11. I Am Waiting 3:11
12. Take It or Leave It 2:47
13. Think 3:09
14. “What to Do” 2:32

North American version[edit]

Aftermath
Aftermath.rollingstones.usalbum.cover.jpg
Studio album by The Rolling Stones
Released 20 June 1966
Recorded 3–8 December 1965, 6–9 March 1966
Genre Rock, pop, rhythm and blues, psychedelic rock
Length 42:31
Label London (US)
Producer Andrew Loog Oldham
The Rolling Stones American chronology
December’s Children (And Everybody’s)
(1965)
Aftermath
(1966)
Between the Buttons
(1967)
Singles from Aftermath
  1. Paint It, Black” / “Stupid Girl
    Released: 7 May 1966

The American version featured different cover art and a shorter running order that eliminated “Out of Time“, “Take It or Leave It“, “What to Do”, and “Mother’s Little Helper“. All four tracks were later issued in the US on other compilations, and “Mother’s Little Helper” was also issued as a single in 1966, peaking at No. 8 on the Billboard charts.[11] In their place, the album substituted their current No. 1 hit “Paint It, Black“. The revamped Aftermath still reached No. 2 in the US, eventually going platinum.[12]

Track listing[edit]

All tracks written by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards.

Side one
No. Title Length
1. Paint It Black 3:22
2. “Stupid Girl” 2:56
3. “Lady Jane” 3:08
4. “Under My Thumb” 3:41
5. “Doncha Bother Me” 2:41
6. “Think” 3:09
Side two
No. Title Length
7. “Flight 505[1] 3:27
8. “High and Dry” 3:08
9. “It’s Not Easy” 2:56
10. “I Am Waiting” 3:11
11. “Goin’ Home” 11:13

Other songs[edit]

Title Length Notes
“19th Nervous Breakdown” Single
“Sad Day” “19th Nervous Breakdown” B-side
“Long Long While” “Paint It, Black” B-side

Could You Walk on the Water[edit]

Several of the songs on the album were initially meant for the US release Could You Walk on the Water. This LP was rejected by Rolling Stones’ American record company, London Records, who instead opted for the greatest hits package Big Hits (High Tide and Green Grass). The track list for the shelved album includes “Take It or Leave It”, “Mother’s Little Helper”, “Think”, “Goin’ Home” (short edit) and “Doncha Bother Me”. Of these, all five would be released on the UK version of Aftermath, three on the US version. Of the remaining tracks, “19th Nervous Breakdown” and “Sad Day” were released as a single, “Sittin’ on the Fence” and “Ride On, Baby” were later to be released on the US album Flowers, along with “Mother’s Little Helper” and “Take It or Leave It”. “Looking Tired” remains unreleased to this day.

Personnel[edit]

The Rolling Stones

Additional personnel

Charts[edit]

Album

Year Chart Position
1966 UK Albums Chart 1[13]
1966 Billboard 200 2[14]
1966 French SNEP Albums Charts 25[15]
Preceded by
The Sound of Music by Original Soundtrack
UK Albums Chart number-one album
30 April – 25 June 1966
Succeeded by
The Sound of Music by Original Soundtrack

Singles

Year Single Chart Position
1966 “Paint It, Black” UK Singles Chart 1[13]
1966 “Paint It, Black” Billboard Hot 100 1[11]
1966 “Mother’s Little Helper” Billboard Hot 100 8[11]
1966 “Lady Jane” Billboard Hot 100 24[11]
1990 “Paint It, Black” UK Singles Chart 63[13]
2007 “Paint It, Black” UK Singles Chart 70[13]
2010 “Paint It, Black” Billboard Rock Digital Songs 25[11]

Certifications[edit]

Country Provider Certification
(sales thresholds)
United States RIAA Platinum

References[edit]

  1. ^ Jump up to:a b Mick Jagger interviewed on the Pop Chronicles (1969)
  2. Jump up^ Walsh, Christopher (24 August 2002). “Super audio CDs: The Rolling Stones Remastered”. Billboard. p. 27.
  3. Jump up^ Aftermath. Rolling Stone. January 2003. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
  4. Jump up^ ^ Robert Dimery; Michael Lydon (23 March 2010). 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die: Revised and Updated Edition. Universe. ISBN 978-0-7893-2074-2.
  5. ^ Jump up to:a b “Aftermath”. http://www.timeisonourside.com. Retrieved 2015-10-23.
  6. Jump up^ Allmusic review (UK)
  7. Jump up^ Allmusic review (US)
  8. Jump up^ Blender review Archived 16 August 2009 at the Wayback Machine.
  9. Jump up^ “The Rolling Stones – Aftermath (album review ) | Sputnikmusic”. http://www.sputnikmusic.com. Retrieved 2015-10-23.
  10. Jump up^ “The Rolling Stones’ Top 10 Albums – Ranked | NME.COM”. NME.COM. Retrieved 2015-10-23.
  11. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Billboard Singles”. All Media Guide / Billboard. Retrieved 23 March 2010.
  12. Jump up^ “RIAA searchable certification database”. Recording Industry Association of America. Retrieved 23 March 2010.
  13. ^ Jump up to:a b c d “UK charts rchive”. chartstats.com. Retrieved 23 March 2010.
  14. Jump up^ Billboard Albums”. All Media Guide / Billboard. Retrieved 23 March 2010.
  15. Jump up^ Tous les Albums classés par Artiste, Note : user must select The Rolling Stones in the list

External links[edit]

  • Link to Patti Smith piece for Creem, January 1973, detailing her response to the Rolling Stones and Aftermath
  1. Jump up^ http://www.rollingstones.com/
  2. Jump up^ Stone Alone – Bill Wyman
  3. Jump up^ Rolling With The Stones – Bill Wyman

Related posts:

Rolling Stones Jumping Jack Flash

__________ __ The Rolling Stones ~ Jumpin’ Jack Flash. (1968) The Dirty Mac Band (John Lennon, Eric Clapton, Keith Richards & Mitch Mitchell) | FeelNumb.com John Lennon, Eric Clapton, Keith Richards, Mitch Mitchell, Jimi Hendrix     ____

“Music Monday” Katy Perry and the Rolling Stones

News/ Katy Perry Sings With Mick Jagger at Rolling Stones Concert—Watch Now by Rebecca Macatee Today 5:45 AM PDT The Rolling Stones & Katy Perry – Beast Of Burden – Live – By Request Published on May 12, 2013 The Rolling Stones and special guest Katy Perry perform ‘Beast Of Burden’ at the Las Vegas […]

Katy Perry performs song “Beast of Burden” with Rolling Stones

News/ Katy Perry Sings With Mick Jagger at Rolling Stones Concert—Watch Now by Rebecca Macatee Today 5:45 AM PDT The Rolling Stones & Katy Perry – Beast Of Burden – Live – By Request Published on May 12, 2013 The Rolling Stones and special guest Katy Perry perform ‘Beast Of Burden’ at the Las Vegas […]

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Part 98 Michael Mann, UCLA Anthropologist, “My mother was a very loving, warm person who I remember her getting extremely unhappy when I told her at the age of 13 I was an atheist but she was the core of the family”

MUSIC MONDAY Eric Clapton and Jimi Hendrix were good friends!!

Jimi Hendrix & Cream – Sunshine Of Your Love Jimi Hendrix & Eric Clapton Jimi Hendrix & Mick Jagger Jimi Hendrix & Keith Richards Jimi Hendrix & Brian Jones Jimi Hendrix & Janis Joplin Jimi Hendrix with Cream & Pink Floyd Even “Legends” want to meet a “Legend” Jimi Hendrix: ‘You never told me he […]

Eric Clapton and Jimi Hendrix were good friends!!

Eric Clapton and Jimi Hendrix were good friends!! Jimi Hendrix & Cream – Sunshine Of Your Love Uploaded on Feb 5, 2012 Hey Joe JIMI HENDRIX live images in 1969, in London! BBC! dedicated to cream”Sunshine of Your Love”. High quality and superior sound. ¡¡¡¡¡full screen!!!!! Everyone wanted to meet or take a picture with […]

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Michael Mann, UCLA Anthropologist, “My mother was a very loving, warm person who I remember her getting extremely unhappy when I told her at the age of 13 I was an atheist but she was the core of the family”

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Michael Mann, UCLA Anthropologist, “My mother was a very loving, warm person who I remember her getting extremely unhappy when I told her at the age of 13 I was an atheist but she was the core of the family”

Open letter to George F. Will concerning Donald Trump!!!

The following was emailed to George F. Will on 6-27-16: Scott Ableman / Wikimedia Dear Mr. Will, I really enjoyed your You Tube cllip “George Will Keynotes 2010 Milton Friedman Prize Dinner:” If you google ARKANSAS MILTON FRIEDMAN you will be brought to my website http://www.thedailyhatch.org since I have written so many posts on my economic hero […]

MUSIC MONDAY Christian Rock Pioneer Larry Norman’s Songs Part 14

Christian Rock Pioneer Larry Norman’s Songs Part 14 I posted a lot in the past about my favorite Christian musicians such as Keith Green (I enjoyed reading Green’s monthly publications too), and 2nd Chapter of Acts and others. Today I wanted to talk about one of Larry Norman’s songs. David Rogers introduced me to Larry […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 107 A look at the BEATLES as featured in 7th episode of Francis Schaeffer film HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? Was popularity of OCCULTISM in UK the reason Aleister Crowley appeared on SGT PEP cover? Schaeffer notes, “People put the Occult in the area of non-reason in the hope of some kind of meaning even if it is a horrendous kind of meaning” Part E (Artist featured today is Gerald Laing )

On the cover of Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band Album there were many individuals that were historical figures that changed history. Many of these individuals had died before the release June 1, 1967 of the album. Aldous Huxley was a major figure in the drug culture and he had died on November 22, 1963. Aleister […]

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY Milton Friedman on Immigration

Open letter to President Obama (Part 618) (Emailed to White House on July 22, 2013)

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

______________________________

FREE TO CHOOSE “Who protects the worker?” Video and Transcript Part

In 1980 I read the book FREE TO CHOOSE by Milton Friedman and it really enlightened me a tremendous amount.  I suggest checking out these episodes and transcripts of Milton Friedman’s film series FREE TO CHOOSE: “The Failure of Socialism” and “What is wrong with our schools?”  and “Created Equal”  and  From Cradle to Grave, and – Power of the Market. Milton Friedman shows in this episode how the worker is best protected and it is not by the government!!!!!!!

The essence of what Milton Friedman is saying in this episode is found in this statement:

“The situation of immigration restrictions really has to do with the question of a welfare state. As I say in the film, I would favor completely free immigration in a society which does not have a welfare system. With a welfare system of the kind we have, you have the problem that people immigrate in order to get welfare, not in order to get employment. You know, it’s a very interesting thing, if you would ask anybody before 1914 the U.S. had no immigration restrictions whatsoever, I’m exaggerating a little bit, there were some immigration restrictions on orientals, but it was essentially, mainly free. If you ask anybody, any American economic historian was that a good thing for America, everybody will say yes it was a wonderful thing for America that we had free immigration. If you ask anybody today, should we have free immigration today, everybody will __ almost everybody will say no. What’s the difference? I think there’s only one difference and that is that when we had free immigration it was immigration of jobs in which everybody benefited. The people who were already here benefited because they got complementary workers, workers who could work with them, make their productivity better, enable them to develop and use the resources of the country better, but today, if you have a system under which you have essentially a governmental guarantee of relief in case of distress, you have a very, very real problem.”

Pt 5

L. WILLIAMS: Dr. Friedman and Walter Williams go back in history and they take a look at a situation where America was empty, where we didn’t have anything like the sophisticated industrial economy we have today, but had a much more agricultural and rural kind of economy and of course when the __ when the impoverished peasants of Europe, my ancestors and most of our ancestors, except for the slaves, which is another situation, but when these people came from Europe and came to a wide open continent with the most fertile soil then available to anyone in the world, naturally there was progress; and I or any of us would be mad to deny progress. But as that developed and as population increased and as we moved into a much more sophisticated industrial economy, we moved then into the situation in the 1930s, or earlier than that , at the end of the century. As some of the more skilled jobs came along, the labor movement didn’t happen by accident. Didn’t happen because there wasn’t a need there. The results of this development, even with all the wealth available in America, the results of this development was that many working people were not having anything like, by standards of civilization or whatever, anything like their fair share in this progress.

MCKENZIE: Now you’re arguing that in a free market, for labor, everyone benefits. Does that mean that you would favor abolition of all immigration restrictions?

FRIEDMAN: The situation of immigration restrictions really has to do with the question of a welfare state. As I say in the film, I would favor completely free immigration in a society which does not have a welfare system. With a welfare system of the kind we have, you have the problem that people immigrate in order to get welfare, not in order to get employment. You know, it’s a very interesting thing, if you would ask anybody before 1914 the U.S. had no immigration restrictions whatsoever, I’m exaggerating a little bit, there were some immigration restrictions on orientals, but it was essentially, mainly free. If you ask anybody, any American economic historian was that a good thing for America, everybody will say yes it was a wonderful thing for America that we had free immigration. If you ask anybody today, should we have free immigration today, everybody will __ almost everybody will say no. What’s the difference? I think there’s only one difference and that is that when we had free immigration it was immigration of jobs in which everybody benefited. The people who were already here benefited because they got complementary workers, workers who could work with them, make their productivity better, enable them to develop and use the resources of the country better, but today, if you have a system under which you have essentially a governmental guarantee of relief in case of distress, you have a very, very real problem.

MCKENZIE: But this is true of every western industrialized country.

FRIEDMAN: That’s right and that’s why today __

MCKENZIE: Yeah.

FRIEDMAN: __ under current circumstances you cannot, unfortunately have free immigration. Not because there’s anything wrong with free immigration, but because we have other policies which make it impossible to adopt free immigration.

MCKENZIE: Well I’d like other reactions. Is it at all feasible to open the door of the labor market internationally now? Bill Brady?

BRADY: I would __ I would say yes providing they open the door to us. I think that the door to not only the labor market, the door to all markets should be __ should be open. That is the product markets.

W. WILLIAMS: My feelings about the undocumented workers of Mexican-Americans are inscribed at the foot of the Statue of Liberty. I think that the people should have the right to come to this country. Now, those who would say, you know, I hear a number of people saying that, well the immigrants are contributing to our unemployment problem. And I point this out to some people, I said, “look, you know, this is the same rhetoric that the Irish used when the blacks were coming up from the north, ” you know, they’re using blacks as scapegoats. They’re saying, “get those people back where they came from so that our members can get jobs, ” you know. Unions were as well doing this, you know, they called them scabs, strikebreakers, etcetera, etcetera. So I do not wish for Mexican-Americans to become the new scapegoats of our particular national problems. They are not the problem, and our nation benefits to the extent that these people come here and work. And to that extent __ to that extent__ so it’s kind of good for them to remain illegal aliens as opposed to being legal aliens where they’re subject to our welfare programs, so that we don’t want them to come here to __

(Several people talking at once.)

GREEN: I think that this country cannot have a group of workers to remain outside the framework of our laws and our protection. And as long as we have workers who are attracted to the United States because of the standards of living; and I think minimum wages play a part in that as part of that attraction. But it seems to me to have undocumented workers without providing either a means of protection for them and it seems to me that we’ve got to go to the question of providing the amnesty for those generations of workers who have come here over a period of time, now two, three, maybe four generations. We have to see that they have the same rights and protection of all other workers. And as it stands now, large numbers of them live outside the framework of the laws and statutes that we have on the __ on our books.

MCKENZIE: Comment Milton.

FRIEDMAN: They do and the tragedy of the situation, as what Walter Williams point out, that as long as they are undocumented and illegal they are a clear net gain, the nation benefits and they benefit. They wouldn’t be here if they didn’t. The tragedy is that we’ve adopted all these other policies so that if we convert them into legal residents it’s no longer clear that we benefit. They may benefit, but it’s no longer clear that we do. What Lynn Williams said before is again a travesty on what was actually going on. The real boost to the trade union movement came after the Great Depression of the 1930s; that Great Depression was not a failure of capitalism; it was not a failure of the private market system as we pointed out in another one of the programs in this series; it was a failure of government. It was not the case that somehow or other there was a decline in the conditions of the working class that produced a great surge of unionism. On the contrary __ unions have never accounted for more than one out of four or one out of five of American workers. The American worker benefited not out of unions, he benefited in spite of unions. He benefited because there was greater opportunity because there were people who were willing to invest their money because there was an opportunity for people to work, to save, to invest. That’s still the case today. You say, we have to provide them with something or other Ernest. Who are the “we”?

GREEN: We the people.

FRIEDMAN: How do we the people __ but how do we the people do it?

GREEN: And it seems __ we the people provide them the protection by seeing that their safety __

MCKENZIE: You’re talking about the immigration population now.

GREEN: __ and occupational health codes that protects the environment that they work in, see that they have civil rights laws that protect their own person. See that they have civil liberties laws that protect them further. We the people of this country provide that protection.

W. WILLIAMS: Why are they coming here it’s so bad? If they don’t have, you know, you’re kind of painting an image, you know. Why are these people coming? We’re not pulling them here by chains.

GREEN: It’s obvious why people come here; it’s one of the wealthiest nations in the world.

(Several talking at once.)

MCKENZIE: Gentlemen, don’t all talk at once. Lynn, and then __

W. WILLIAMS: So what are you talking about protecting them?

GREEN: Why did you leave Little Rock, Arkansas to go to Philadelphia? It seems to point__

L. WILLIAMS: It seems to me that it’s obvious __

W. WILLIAMS: Would you extend the courtesy to finish. Look, look, first thing, look, let me say the following things: There’s some basic things that we need to know.

L. WILLIAMS: Well now are you going to say the thing I was interrupting and then say five more things. I mean there isn’t all afternoon.

W. WILLIAMS: You know, labor unions, and minimum wages for that case cannot improve the condition of the working people of the country.

L. WILLIAMS: We do it everyday.

W. WILLIAMS: Because if__ are you suggesting __

L. WILLIAMS: We improve the working conditions of working people in countries all around the world, everyday.

W. WILLIAMS: Well you know this __ you know what you’re telling the audience, you’re saying that you can solve the problems in Bangladesh. You can make them a rich country if you tell them to unionize like we are __

L. WILLIAMS: I didn’t say that.

W. WILLIAMS: __and demand high wages.

L. WILLIAMS: No, I didn’t say anything remotely like that.

W. WILLIAMS: It’s productivity that keeps income low.

MCKENZIE: Lynn, let him finish.

BRADY: I come back to my initial question: why are so many leaving the union?

L. WILLIAMS: There aren’t very many leaving the union.

BRADY: Oh, there are too. I’ve given you the statistics.

L. WILLIAMS: Ah, now, do you think I’m __ you grind off some percentages. I live in the labor movement.

BRADY: You __ do you have other percentages?

FRIEDMAN: In or on?

L. WILLIAMS: In, with and on. And of course they pay me, of course, and I don’t have any objection to that at all.

FRIEDMAN: Neither do I.

L. WILLIAMS: At least we got you a few minutes ago __ we got you to get the labor movement up into this century. And I agree with the observation you made __

(Laughter)

L. WILLIAMS: I agree with the observation you made that the industrial union movement __ that there was a union movement came out of the, out of the dirty ’30s and out of the depression and grew and that was essentially and industrial union movement. But I wonder if __ I wonder when I hear your commentary on the film and so on about unions and restricting practices and restricting access to industry and all of this, I really __ I don’t mean it disrespectfully, but I really wonder __

FRIEDMAN: Don’t mind being disrespectful, it’s all right. I’m used to it.

L. WILLIAMS: I really wonder if you, if you do understand how the industrial union movement, which is __ the more recent part of the union, how it really operates. We’re not telling anybody who they have to hire.

FRIEDMAN: (Laughing)

___________________________

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

Related posts:

“The Power of the Market” episode of Free to Choose in 1990 by Milton Friedman (Part 1)

Milton Friedman The Power of the Market 1-5 How can we have personal freedom without economic freedom? That is why I don’t understand why socialists who value individual freedoms want to take away our economic freedoms.  I wanted to share this info below with you from Milton Friedman who has influenced me greatly over the […]

“Friedman Friday,” EPISODE “The Failure of Socialism” of Free to Choose in 1990 by Milton Friedman (Part 1)

Milton Friedman: Free To Choose – The Failure Of Socialism With Ronald Reagan (Full) Published on Mar 19, 2012 by NoNationalityNeeded Milton Friedman’s writings affected me greatly when I first discovered them and I wanted to share with you. We must not head down the path of socialism like Greece has done. Abstract: Ronald Reagan […]

________________

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 3 – Anatomy of a Crisis. part 3 of 7)

Worse still, America’s depression was to become worldwide because of what lies behind these doors. This is the vault of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Inside is the largest horde of gold in the world. Because the world was on a gold standard in 1929, these vaults, where the U.S. gold was stored, […]

“Friedman Friday” (Part 16) (“Free to Choose” episode 3 – Anatomy of a Crisis. part 2 of 7)

  George Eccles: Well, then we called all our employees together. And we told them to be at the bank at their place at 8:00 a.m. and just act as if nothing was happening, just have a smile on their face, if they could, and me too. And we have four savings windows and we […]

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 3 – Anatomy of a Crisis. part 1of 7)

Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980), episode 3 – Anatomy of a Crisis. part 1 FREE TO CHOOSE: Anatomy of Crisis Friedman Delancy Street in New York’s lower east side, hardly one of the city’s best known sites, yet what happened in this street nearly 50 years ago continues to effect all of us today. […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

____________________________

_____________


________________________________________________

_____________________________________________

Friedman Friday” Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” (Part 3 of transcript and video)

Friedman Friday” Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” (Part 3 of transcript and video) Here is the video clip and transcript of the film series FREE TO CHOOSE episode “What is wrong with our schools?” Part 3 of 6.   Volume 6 – What’s Wrong with our Schools Transcript: If it […]

Friedman Friday” Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” (Part 2 of transcript and video)

Here is the video clip and transcript of the film series FREE TO CHOOSE episode “What is wrong with our schools?” Part 2 of 6.   Volume 6 – What’s Wrong with our Schools Transcript: Groups of concerned parents and teachers decided to do something about it. They used private funds to take over empty stores and they […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Vouchers | Edit | Comments (1)

Friedman Friday” Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” (Part 1 of transcript and video)

Here is the video clip and transcript of the film series FREE TO CHOOSE episode “What is wrong with our schools?” Part 1 of 6.   Volume 6 – What’s Wrong with our Schools Transcript: Friedman: These youngsters are beginning another day at one of America’s public schools, Hyde Park High School in Boston. What happens when […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Vouchers | Tagged , , , , | Edit | Comments (0)

Friedman Friday” Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “Created Equal” (Part 3 of transcript and video)

Friedman Friday” Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “Created Equal” (Part 3 of transcript and video) Liberals like President Obama want to shoot for an equality of outcome. That system does not work. In fact, our free society allows for the closest gap between the wealthy and the poor. Unlike other countries where free enterprise and other […]

Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “Created Equal” (Part 2 of transcript and video)

Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “Created Equal” (Part 2 of transcript and video) Liberals like President Obama want to shoot for an equality of outcome. That system does not work. In fact, our free society allows for the closest gap between the wealthy and the poor. Unlike other countries where free enterprise and other freedoms are […]

Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “Created Equal” (Part 1 of transcript and video)

 Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan Liberals like President Obama (and John Brummett) want to shoot for an equality of outcome. That system does not work. In fact, our free society allows for the closest gap between the wealthy and the poor. Unlike other countries where free enterprise and other freedoms are not present.  This is a seven part series. […]

Milton Friedman Friday: (“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 3 of 7)

 I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. PART 3 OF 7 Worse still, America’s depression was to become worldwide because of what lies behind these doors. This is the vault of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Inside […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Edit | Comments (0)

Milton Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 2 of 7)

 I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen. For the past 7 years Maureen Ramsey has had to buy food and clothes for her family out of a government handout. For the whole of that time, her husband, Steve, hasn’t […]

Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 1 of 7)

Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 1 of 7) Volume 4 – From Cradle to Grave Abstract: Since the Depression years of the 1930s, there has been almost continuous expansion of governmental efforts to provide for people’s welfare. First, there was a tremendous expansion of public works. The Social Security Act […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Edit | Comments (0)

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 3 of 7)

  _________________________   Pt3  Nowadays there’s a considerable amount of traffic at this border. People cross a little more freely than they use to. Many people from Hong Kong trade in China and the market has helped bring the two countries closer together, but the barriers between them are still very real. On this side […]

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 2 of 7)

  Aside from its harbor, the only other important resource of Hong Kong is people __ over 4_ million of them. Like America a century ago, Hong Kong in the past few decades has been a haven for people who sought the freedom to make the most of their own abilities. Many of them are […]

“Friedman Friday” (“Free to Choose” episode 1 – Power of the Market. part 1of 7)

“FREE TO CHOOSE” 1: The Power of the Market (Milton Friedman) Free to Choose ^ | 1980 | Milton Friedman Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 4:20:46 PM by Choose Ye This Day FREE TO CHOOSE: The Power of the Market Friedman: Once all of this was a swamp, covered with forest. The Canarce Indians […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Milton Friedman | Edit | Comments (0)

“Friedman Friday,” EPISODE “The Failure of Socialism” of Free to Choose in 1990 by Milton Friedman (Part 1)

Milton Friedman: Free To Choose – The Failure Of Socialism With Ronald Reagan (Full) Published on Mar 19, 2012 by NoNationalityNeeded Milton Friedman’s writings affected me greatly when I first discovered them and I wanted to share with you. We must not head down the path of socialism like Greece has done. Abstract: Ronald Reagan […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton FriedmanPresident Obama | Edit | Comments (1)

“The Failure of Socialism” episode of Free to Choose in 1990 by Milton Friedman (Part 1)

Milton Friedman: Free To Choose – The Failure Of Socialism With Ronald Reagan (Full) Published on Mar 19, 2012 by NoNationalityNeeded Milton Friedman’s writings affected me greatly when I first discovered them and I wanted to share with you. We must not head down the path of socialism like Greece has done. Abstract: Ronald Reagan […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 154, this post includes portion of 6-2-94 letter from Hospers to me blasting Christian Evangelicalism, John Hospers Part J (Featured artist is Alex Katz)

__

Image result for john hospers

13. Immigration Symposium: John Hospers, A Libertarian Argument Against Open Borders

Published on Dec 15, 2016

Not everyone who wishes to come to the United States should be permitted to do so, says John Hospers.

__________

I sent a cassette tape of Adrian Rogers on Evolution to John Hospers in May of 1994 which was the 10th anniversary of Francis Schaeffer’s passing and I promptly received a typed two page response from Dr. John Hospers. Dr. Hospers had both read my letter and all the inserts plus listened to the whole sermon and had some very angry responses. If you would like to hear the sermon from Adrian Rogers and read the transcript then refer to my earlier post at this link.  Over the last few weeks I have posted  portions of Dr. Hospers’ letter and portions of the cassette tape that he listened to back in 1994, but today I want  to look at some other comments made on that cassette tape that John Hospers listened to and I will also post a few comments that Dr. Hospers made in that 2 page letter.

Here is a portion of Hospers’ June 2, 1994 letter to me: 

“One would have to stop the speaker (Adrian Rogers) at every turn and say THIS DOESN’T FOLLOW FROM WHAT YOU SAID JUST BEFORE, and THIS WORD IS AMBIGIOUS, YOU ARE TRADING ON AN EQUIVOCATION and then sometimes he just shifts the ground entirely, like using passages from the Bible to prove that the Bible itself is true. Any intelligent person sees these dishonest strategies at once. I was onto most of them by the time I was 14.”

__________

One of my favorite messages by Adrian Rogers is called  “WHO IS JESUS?”and he goes through the Old Testament and looks at the scriptures that describe the Messiah.  I want to encourage you to listen to this audio message which I will send to anyone anywhere anytime. I have given thousands of these CD’s away over the years that contain this message and they all contain the following story from Adrian Rogers (WHICH WAS INCLUDED ON THE CASSETTE TAPE I SENT TO DR. HOSPERS) .  Here is how the story goes:

Years ago Adrian Rogers counseled with a NASA scientist and his severely depressed wife. The wife pointed to her husband and said, “My problem is him.” She went on to explain that her husband was a drinker, a liar, and an adulterer. Dr. Rogers asked the man if he were a Christian. “No!” the man laughed. “I’m an atheist.”

“Really?” Dr. Rogers replied. “That means you’re someone who knows that God does not exist.”

“That’s right,” said the man.

“Would it be fair to say that you don’t know all there is to know in the universe?”

“Of course.”

“Would it be generous to say you know half of all there is to know?”

“Yes.”

“Wouldn’t it be possible that God’s existence might be in the half you don’t know?”

“Okay, but I don’t think He exists.”

“Well then, you’re not an atheist; you’re an agnostic. You’re a doubter.”

“Yes, and I’m a big one.”

“It doesn’t matter what size you are. I want to know what kind you are.”

“What kinds are there?”

“There are honest doubters and dishonest doubters. An honest doubter is willing to search out the truth and live by the results; a dishonest doubter doesn’t want to know the truth. He can’t find God for the same reason a thief can’t find a policeman.”

“I want to know the truth.”

“Would you like to prove that God exists?”

“It can’t be done.”

“It can be done. You’ve just been in the wrong laboratory. Jesus said, ‘If any man’s will is to do His will, he will know whether my teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority’ (John 7:17). I suggest you read one chapter of the book of John each day, but before you do, pray something like this, ‘God, I don’t know if You’re there, I don’t know if the Bible is true, I don’t know if Jesus is Your Son. But if You show me that You are there, that the Bible is true, and that Jesus is Your Son, then I will follow You. My will is to do your will.”

The man agreed. About three weeks later he returned to Dr. Rogers’s office and invited Jesus Christ to be his Savior and Lord.

_____________________________________

Adrian Rogers: Who is Jesus? [#2264]

Published on May 21, 2016

What makes this one Man unique? Why does He stand out above all others? Adrian Rogers gives three reasons why Jesus deserves pre-eminence. To explain Jesus Christ is impossible. To ignore Him is disastrous. To reject Him is fatal. Understand who Jesus Christ is.

Scripture References: Colossians 1:12-21
Series: The Mystery of History
This Message: https://www.lwf.org/products/2264DVD
This Series: https://www.lwf.org/products/CDA197
1. Who is Jesus? [#2264]
2. Jesus Christ: The Son of God and God the Son [#2265]
3. The Unfinished Story of Christmas [#2266]
4. Planning Your Future [#2268]

If you would like more information please visit these following websites:
Official Website: https: http://www.lwf.org/
Audio Messages: http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/lo…
Video Messages: http://www.lightsource.com/ministry/l…
Follow on Twitter: https://twitter.com/lwfministries
Like on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Love-Worth-F…
Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/lwfminis…

If you would like to contact LWF Ministries
Write to: PO Box 38300, Memphis, Tennessee 38183
Call: (901) 382-7900

Adrian Rogers: The Biography of the King [#2325]

___________

How can I know the Bible is the Word of God? by Adrian Rogers

________________________

 

____

Is the Bible historically accurate? Here are some of the posts I have done in the past on the subject: 1. The Babylonian Chronicleof Nebuchadnezzars Siege of Jerusalem2. Hezekiah’s Siloam Tunnel Inscription. 3. Taylor Prism (Sennacherib Hexagonal Prism)4. Biblical Cities Attested Archaeologically. 5. The Discovery of the Hittites6.Shishak Smiting His Captives7. Moabite Stone8Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III9A Verification of places in Gospel of John and Book of Acts., 9B Discovery of Ebla Tablets10. Cyrus Cylinder11. Puru “The lot of Yahali” 9th Century B.C.E.12. The Uzziah Tablet Inscription13. The Pilate Inscription14. Caiaphas Ossuary14 B Pontius Pilate Part 214c. Three greatest American Archaeologists moved to accept Bible’s accuracy through archaeology.

 The Bible and Archaeology – Is the Bible from God? (Kyle Butt)

______________________

During the 1990′s I actually made it a practice to write famous atheists and scientists that were mentioned by Adrian Rogers and Francis Schaeffer and challenge them with the evidence for the Bible’s historicity and the claims of the gospel. Usually I would send them a cassette tape of Adrian Rogers’ messages “6 reasons I know the Bible is True,” “The Final Judgement,” “Who is Jesus?” and the message by Bill Elliff, “How to get a pure heart.”  I would also send them printed material from the works of Francis Schaeffer and a personal apologetic letter from me addressing some of the issues in their work. My second cassette tape that I sent to both Antony Flew and George Wald was Adrian Rogers’ sermon on evolution and here below you can watch that very sermon on You Tube.   Carl Sagan also took time to correspond with me about a year before he died. 

(Francis Schaeffer pictured below)

Image result for francis schaeffer

Adrian Rogers pictured below

I have posted on Adrian Rogers’ messages on Evolution before but here is a complete message on it.

Evolution: Fact of Fiction? By Adrian Rogers

__

__________

Featured artist is Alex Katz

One morning. That’s how long it takes Alex Katz to start—and finish—a painting.

This high-speed routine has repeated itself many mornings, for many years. Such remarkable productivity would be a feat for any artist, but especially an 87-year-old whose towering pictures demand exacting brushwork across canvases that span entire walls. Mr. Katz, a painter best known for his portraits, recently finished landscapes for two new exhibits: one opening Saturday at his New York gallery, Gavin Brown’s enterprise, the other coming in June to Atlanta’s High Museum of Art.

The artist can’t quite explain his drive, beyond saying that he loves to paint. Still, he suggests that even this late in his career, after hundreds of shows and every kind of review, he has something to prove.

“I just love putting it to people who didn’t like me,” said Mr. Katz, sounding more like a cocky art student than an art world elder statesman. Around his New York apartment, which connects to his sunlit studio, pretty young women in bathing suits—an enduring subject for him—stare impassively from their canvases. “There are people from 20, 30, 40 years ago that I love meeting on the street and saying hello. I don’t have to say anything, I just have to say hello, and my presence reminds them of their mistakes.”

The late career of Mr. Katz defies easy categorization. To some, this is a master at the height of his powers in a race against time. To others, his later work pales in comparison to the canvases that brought him to fame more than 40 years ago. For his part, Mr. Katz recently told a friend that at this moment in his life, all he does is paint and sleep.

Artists who work into their old age raise an uncomfortable question: They paint because they want to—or even need to. But how do they deal with demanding art audiences, who, like fans at a Rolling Stones concert, prefer the old stuff?

It can be difficult to judge the significance of late paintings right away. The early art is already many decades old, so its broader impact may be easier to determine than it is with canvases finished yesterday. Without careful editing, a flood of late work could potentially depress the artist’s overall market if it is not well received, said Gavin Brown, Mr. Katz’s dealer, who countered that he believes the artist is experiencing a “supernova” of creativity right now, leading to some of the finest paintings of his career. He added that concerns about supply and demand have never mattered much to Mr. Katz regardless: “He’s not a strategist in that way,” he said.

These days, Mr. Katz said he rarely destroys a canvas and estimates that he keeps hundreds of his own works in storage. The basic framework of his art hasn’t changed: He paints in a flat style, over the years repeatedly gravitating to landscapes, flowers and portraits of those summery models—as well as art friends and, most enduringly, his wife of 57 years, Ada.

The Paintings of Alex Katz

A painter best known for his portraits, artist Alex Katz recently finished landscapes for two new exhibits: one opening Saturday at his New York gallery, Gavin Brown’s enterprise, the other coming in June to Atlanta’s High Museum of Art.

‘Ada (Oval),’ 1959
‘Red House 2,’ 2013 | Gavin Brown’s enterprise: ‘Alex Katz,’ May 2-June 13
‘10 am,’ 2014
‘Night House 1,’ 2013
‘Untitled Cityscape 6,’ 2014
‘Wet Day,’ 2013
‘Blue Umbrella #2,’ 1972 | The High Museum of Art in Atlanta: ‘Alex Katz, This is Now,’ June 21- Sept. 6
‘White Roses 9,’ 2012
‘4:30 PM,’ 2007
‘Summer Picnic,’ 1975
‘10:30 AM,’ 2007-08
‘Sunset 1,’ 2008
Alex Katz mural to be on display in May at Barneys New York. Mural by Alex Katz created exclusively for his collaboration with Barneys and Art Production Fund.
‘Ada,’ 1959 | Colby College Museum of Art in Waterville, Maine: ‘Brand-New & Terrific: Alex Katz in the 1950s,’ July 11- Oct 18
‘Ada in Blue Sweater,’ 1959
‘Bather,’ 1959
‘Slab City Road,’ 1959
‘Double Portrait of Robert Rauschenberg,’ 1959
‘Goldenrod,’ 1955
‘Wildflowers in Vase,’ 1954-55
‘Ada (Oval),’ 1959
‘Red House 2,’ 2013 | Gavin Brown’s enterprise: ‘Alex Katz,’ May 2-June 13

PreviousNext

1 of 20fullscreen
‘Ada (Oval),’ 1959 ALEX KATZ
‘Red House 2,’ 2013 | Gavin Brown’s enterprise: ‘Alex Katz,’ May 2-June 13 ALEX KATZ/GAVIN BROWN’S ENTERPRISE
‘10 am,’ 2014 ALEX KATZ/GAVIN BROWN’S ENTERPRISE
‘Night House 1,’ 2013 ALEX KATZ/GAVIN BROWN’S ENTERPRISE
‘Untitled Cityscape 6,’ 2014 ALEX KATZ/GAVIN BROWN’S ENTERPRISE
‘Wet Day,’ 2013 ALEX KATZ/GAVIN BROWN’S ENTERPRISE
‘Blue Umbrella #2,’ 1972 | The High Museum of Art in Atlanta: ‘Alex Katz, This is Now,’ June 21- Sept. 6 ALEX KATZ/VAGA, NEW YORK, NY
‘White Roses 9,’ 2012 ALEX KATZ/VAGA, NEW YORK, NY
‘4:30 PM,’ 2007 ALEX KATZ/VAGA, NEW YORK, NY
‘Summer Picnic,’ 1975 ALEX KATZ/VAGA, NEW YORK, NY
‘10:30 AM,’ 2007-08 ALEX KATZ/VAGA, NEW YORK, NY
‘Sunset 1,’ 2008 ALEX KATZ/VAGA, NEW YORK, NY
Alex Katz mural to be on display in May at Barneys New York. Mural by Alex Katz created exclusively for his collaboration with Barneys and Art Production Fund. BARNEYS NEW YORK
‘Ada,’ 1959 | Colby College Museum of Art in Waterville, Maine: ‘Brand-New & Terrific: Alex Katz in the 1950s,’ July 11- Oct 18 ALEX KATZ
‘Ada in Blue Sweater,’ 1959 ALEX KATZ
‘Bather,’ 1959 ALEX KATZ
‘Slab City Road,’ 1959 ALEX KATZ
‘Double Portrait of Robert Rauschenberg,’ 1959 ALEX KATZ
‘Goldenrod,’ 1955 ALEX KATZ
‘Wildflowers in Vase,’ 1954-55 ALEX KATZ
‘Ada (Oval),’ 1959 ALEX KATZ
‘Red House 2,’ 2013 | Gavin Brown’s enterprise: ‘Alex Katz,’ May 2-June 13 ALEX KATZ/GAVIN BROWN’S ENTERPRISE

Despite his adherence to familiar themes, Mr. Katz’s admirers say the painter is as inventive as ever.

Robert Storr, dean of Yale University’s school of art, described visiting Mr. Katz recently and coming across a new painting—an image of a Manhattan building reflected on wet pavement that he said dazzled with its depth of observation. “It was a wonderful picture, and he has never made anything like it before,” he said. “He keeps going back to places he’s been with a new attack.”

Some art critics look at the paintings—including canvases of landscapes and flowers that have been a frequent sight at art fairs around the world over the years—and find less meaning. “The work has a tendency to look just pretty,” said Christian Viveros-Fauné, an art critic for the Village Voice and Artnet News. “The stuff I’m seeing around, the flower paintings, look awful easy and look like basically art-size decoration.”

Mr. Katz said the subject of his art is not the point. “Pretty girls and flowers? Come on. Trees? It’s not banal, but it’s pretty pedestrian,” he said. “The experience of it, the time and light, is the big thing.”

Famous artists with long careers are complex case studies. Spanish romantic painter Francisco Goya’s early years were a kind of warm-up act for what would come next: He was nearly 70 when in 1814 he completed “The Third of May 1808,” an iconic picture of an execution that many call the first modern painting. Pierre-Auguste Renoir is celebrated as a genius for his paintings into his midlife in the 1880s and 1890s, but now some critics call his late canvases low-brow. (They did back in the day, too: Impressionist painter Mary Cassatt once dismissed a group of them as pictures of “enormously fat red women with very small heads.”)

A popular exhibit about J.M.W. Turner now at the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles argues that in old age the British artist freed himself from academic constraints and displayed supreme technical proficiency as a painter. He tested new subjects and formats—painting on canvases shaped like circles and octagons, for instance—and fully grasped nuances in nature and atmosphere. Today, the late work also stands out because it is viewed through the lens of the Impressionist and Abstract Expressionist movements that it foreshadowed, said Julian Brooks, the show’s co-curator.

The art establishment has run hot and cold on Mr. Katz: On one hand, he is a commanding figure in the art scene, cited as an important influence on contemporary artists such as David Salle, Francesco Clemente and Elizabeth Peyton. “Alex is a wonderful artist and he casts a big shadow that younger painters have to deal with,” said the artist Eric Fischl.

That said, Mr. Katz hasn’t had a major retrospective in New York since 1986. Mr. Storr called him “A prophet without his own country.” Dealer Gavin Brown said Mr. Katz’s works sell for a fraction of the prices fetched by many of his contemporaries, with the new works priced at $350,000 to $1.1 million. Mr. Katz’s auction record was set in 2007 with the $690,600 sale of a 1967 painting of tulips.

Lately, the artist has started basing work on photographs, what he calls a first. He is drawn to the variety of gestures his iPhone can capture with his models, though he had to ask a stranger on the street how to work the camera.

While curators examine his earliest work—a show about the artist’s 1950s pieces opens this July at the Colby College Museum of Art in Waterville, Maine—Mr. Katz is testing new partnerships. In May, he will unveil window displays and an accompanying line of housewares for the luxury retailer Barneys New York.

The artist said he does most of his work himself, though once a week, two assistants come to his fifth-floor studio to set up his canvases. For a single artwork, he begins by painting a small picture on Masonite, sometimes following with another painted study and eventually transferring the outlines of that image to a large canvas. The actual painting of the monumental picture goes quickly as he applies wet paint on previous layers of wet paint, leaving little room for error.

Lanky and bald, zipped into a paint-splattered turquoise hoodie on a recent morning, he described an exercise regimen that can last up to three hours a day in the summers (“running, swimming, bike riding, calisthenics”). The idea of politics in painting (“idear,” in the lingering Queens accent of his childhood) never held much appeal, he said. Youth and beauty continue to serve as inspirations.

He recently completed a canvas with six versions of the same blond woman in a black swimsuit shifting back and forth in space against a bright orange background, a work he said took experimental leaps with size and movement. Soon, he’ll return to Maine, as he does every summer, looking like a Sunday painter outside with his easel as he works on landscape studies.

The artist said he’s not confronting his mortality head-on in his work: “I’ve come to terms with that. I think it’s here and now. Eternity is in total consciousness.” Such complete awareness comes to him while painting, he said, comparing the feeling to running the 440-yard dash in high school. “There’s always the end, where there’s an enormous push,” he said. “I like the resistance of the painting. When you’re getting to the end of it, you’re pushing it and you don’t know whether you’re going to get it or not.”

Write to Ellen Gamerman at ellen.gamerman@wsj.com

Alex Katz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Alex Katz
Chuck Close, Alex.jpg

Alex Katz
Born July 24, 1927 (age 89)
Brooklyn, New York
Nationality American
Education The Cooper Union, Skowhegan School of Painting and Sculpture
Known for Sculpture, Painting, Printmaking
Movement East Coast Figurative painting, New Realism, Pop Art

Alex Katz (born July 24, 1927) is an American figurative artist. In particular, he is known for his paintings, sculptures, and prints and is represented by numerous galleries internationally.

Early life and career[edit]

Alex Katz was born to a Jewish family[1] in Brooklyn, New York, as the son of an émigré who had lost a factory he owned in Russia to the Soviet revolution.[2] In 1928 the family moved to St. Albans, Queens, where Katz grew up.[3]

From 1946 to 1949 Katz studied at The Cooper Union in New York, and from 1949 to 1950 he studied at the Skowhegan School of Painting and Sculpture in Skowhegan, Maine. Skowhegan exposed him to painting from life, which would prove pivotal in his development as a painter and remains a staple of his practices today. Katz explains that Skowhegan’s plein air painting gave him “a reason to devote my life to painting.”[4] Every year from early June to mid-September, Katz moves from his SoHo loft to a 19th-century clapboard farmhouse in Lincolnville, Maine.[5] A summer resident of Lincolnville since 1954, he has developed a close relationship with local Colby College.[citation needed] From 1954 to 1960, he made a number of small collages of still lifes, Maine landscapes, and small figures.[6] He met Ada Del Moro, who had studied biology at New York University, at a gallery opening in 1957.[2] In 1960, Katz had his first (and only) son, Vincent Katz. Vincent Katz had two sons, Isaac and Oliver, who have been the subjects of Katz’s paintings.

Katz has admitted to destroying a thousand paintings during his first ten years as a painter in order to find his style. Since the 1950s, he worked to create art more freely in the sense that he tried to paint “faster than [he] can think.”[7] His works seem simple, but according to Katz they are more reductive, which is fitting to his personality.[8] “(The) one thing I don’t want to do is things already done. As for particular subject matter, I don’t like narratives, basically.”[9]

Work[edit]

Katz achieved great public prominence in the 1980s.[10] He is well known for his large paintings, whose bold simplicity and heightened colours are now seen as precursors to Pop Art.[11]

Painting[edit]

Katz’s paintings are divided almost equally into the genres of portraiture and landscape. Since the 1960s he has painted views of New York (especially his immediate surroundings in Soho), the landscapes of Maine, where he spends several months every year, as well as portraits of family members, artists, writers and New York society protagonists.[12] His paintings are defined by their flatness of colour and form, their economy of line, and their cool but seductive emotional detachment.[13] A key source of inspiration is the woodcuts produced by Japanese artist Kitagawa Utamaro.[14]

In the early 1960s, influenced by films, television, and billboard advertising, Katz began painting large-scale paintings, often with dramatically cropped faces. Ada Katz, whom he married in 1958, has been the subject of over 250[15] portraits throughout his career.[16]To make one of his large works, Katz paints a small oil sketch of a subject on a masonite board; the sitting might take an hour and a half. He then makes a small, detailed drawing in pencil or charcoal, with the subject returning, perhaps, for the artist to make corrections. Katz next blows up the drawing into a “cartoon,” sometimes using an overhead projector, and transfers it to an enormous canvas via “pouncing”—a technique used by Renaissance artists, involving powdered pigment pushed through tiny perforations pricked into the cartoon to recreate the composition on the surface to be painted. Katz pre-mixes all his colors and gets his brushes ready. Then he dives in and paints the canvas—12 feet wide by 7 feet high or even larger—in a session of six or seven hours.

Beginning in the late 1950s, Katz developed a technique of painting on cut panels, first of wood, then aluminum, calling them “cutouts”. These works would occupy space like sculptures, but their physicality is compressed into planes, as with paintings.[17] In later works, the cutouts are attached to wide, U-shaped aluminum stands, with a flickering, cinematic presence enhanced by warm spotlights. Most are close-ups, showing either front-and-back views of the same figure’s head or figures who regard each other from opposite edges of the stand.[18]

After 1964, Katz increasingly portrayed groups of figures. He would continue painting these complex groups into the 1970s, portraying the social world of painters, poets, critics, and other colleagues that surrounded him. He began designing sets and costumes for choreographer Paul Taylor in the early 1960s, and he has painted many images of dancers throughout the years. One Flight Up (1968) consists of more than 30 portraits of some of the leading lights of New York’s intelligentsia during the late 1960s, such as the poet John Ashbery, the art critic Irving Sandler and the curator Henry Geldzahler, who championed Andy Warhol. Each portrait is painted using oils on both sides of a sliver of aluminium that has then been cut into the shape of the subject’s head and shoulders. The silhouettes are arranged predominantly in four long rows on a plain metal table.[19]

After his Whitney exhibition in 1974, Katz focused on landscapes stating “I wanted to make an environmental landscape, where you were IN it.”[20] In the late 1980s, Katz took on a new subject in his work: fashion models in designer clothing, including Kate Moss and Christy Turlington.[4] “I’ve always been interested in fashion because it’s ephemeral,” he said.[21]

Printmaking[edit]

In 1965, Katz also embarked on a prolific career in printmaking. Katz would go on to produce many editions in lithography, etching, silkscreen, woodcut and linoleum cut, producing over 400 print editions in his lifetime. The Albertina, Vienna, and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, hold complete collections of Katz print oeuvre. A print catalogue raisonné is due for release by the Albertina in the fall of 2011.

Public commissions[edit]

In 1977, Alex Katz was asked to create a work to be produced in billboard format above Times Square, New York City. The work, which was located at 42nd Street and 7th Avenue, consisted of a frieze composed of 23 portrait heads of women. Each portrait measured twenty feet high, and was based on a study Katz did from life. The billboard extended 247 feet long along two sides of the RKO General building and wrapped in thee tiers above on a 60-foot tower. Katz was commissioned in 1980 by the US General Service Administration’s Art in Architecture Program to create an oil on canvas mural in the new United States Attorney’s Building at Foley Square, New York City. The mural, located inside the Silvio V. Mollo Building at Cardinal Hayes Place & Park Row, is 20 feet high by 20 feet wide.[22] In 2005, Katz participated in a public art project Paint in the City commissioned by United Technologies Corporation and organized by Creative Time. The work, titled Give Me Tomorrow, reached 28 feet tall and 53 feet long on a billboard space above the Bowery Bar. Located on the corner of the Bowery and East Fourth Street in the East Village, the work was hand painted by sign painters and was installed during the summer of 2005.[23]

Collaborations[edit]

Katz has collaborated with poets and writers since the 1960s, producing several notable editions such as “Face of the Poet”[24] combining his images with poetry from his circle, such as Ted Berrigan, Ann Lauterbach, Carter Ratcliff, and Gerard Malanga. He has worked with the poet John Ashbery, creating publications entitled “Fragment”[25] in 1966 and “Coma Berenices”.[26] in 2005. He has worked with Vincent Katz on “A Tremor in the Morning”[27] and “Swimming Home”.[28] Katz also made 25 etchings for the Arion Press edition of Gloria with 28 poems by Bill Berkson. Other collaborators include Robert Creeley, with whom he produced “Edges”[29] and “Legeia: A Libretto”.[30] and Kenneth Koch, producing “Interlocking Lives”.[31] In 1962, Harper’s Bazaar incorporated numerous wooden cutouts by Katz for a four-page summer fashion spread.

Numerous publications outline Katz’s career’s many facets: from Alex Katz in Maine[32] published by the Farnsworth Art Museum to the catalogue Alex Katz New York,[33] published by the Irish Museum of Modern Art. Alex Katz Seeing Drawing, Making,[34] published in 2008, describes Katz’s multiple-stage process of first producing charcoal drawings, small oil studies, and large cartoons for placing the image on the canvas and the final painting of the canvas. In 2005, Phaidon Press published an illustrated survey, Alex Katz, by Carter Ratcliff, Robert Storr and Iwona Blazwick. In 1989, a special edition of Parkett was devoted to Katz, showing that he is now considered a major reference for younger painters and artists.[35] Over the years, Francesco Clemente, Enzo Cucchi, Liam Gillick, Peter Halley, David Salle and Richard Prince have written essays about his work or conducted interviews with him.[36]

Exhibitions[edit]

Since 1951, Alex Katz’s work has been the subject of more than 200 solo exhibitions and nearly 500 group exhibitions throughout the United States and internationally.[3] Katz’ first one-person show was an exhibition of paintings at the Roko Gallery in New York in 1954. In 1974 the Whitney Museum of American Art showed Alex Katz Prints, followed by a traveling retrospective exhibition of paintings and cutouts titled Alex Katz in 1986. The subject of over 200 solo exhibitions and nearly 500 group shows internationally, Katz has since been honoured with numerous retrospectives at museums including the Whitney Museum of American Art, New York; Brooklyn Museum, New York; the Jewish Museum, New York; the Irish Museum of Modern Art, Dublin; Colby College Museum of Art, Maine; Staaliche Kunsthalle, Baden-Baden; Fondazione Bevilacqua La Masa, Venice, Centro de Arte Contemporáneo de Málaga and the Saatchi Gallery, London (1998).[37] In 1998, a survey of Katz’ landscape paintings was shown at the P.S. 1 Contemporary Art Center, featuring nearly 40 pared-down paintings of urban or pastoral motifs.[38]

Katz is represented by Gavin Brown’s Enterprise in New York, Timothy Taylor Gallery in London, and Galerie Thaddaeus Ropac in Paris/Salzburg. Before showing with Brown, he had been represented by Pace Gallery for 10 years and by Marlborough Gallery for 30 years.[39]

Collections[edit]

Katz’s work is in the collections of over 100 public institutions worldwide, including the Honolulu Museum of Art, the Museum of Modern Art, New York, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY; Whitney Museum of American Art, NY; the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.; Carnegie Museum of Art; the Art Institute of Chicago; Cleveland Museum of Art; the Tate Gallery, London; the Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris; Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofia, Madrid; Metropolitan Museum of Art, Tokyo; the Nationalgalerie, Berlin; and the Museum Brandhorst, Munich.[40] In 2010, Anthony d’Offay donated a group of works by Katz to the National Galleries of Scotland and Tate; they are shown as part of the national touring programme, Artist Rooms.[41][42] In 2011, Katz donated Rush (1971), a series of 37 painted life-size cutout heads on aluminum, to the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; the piece is installed, frieze-like, in its own space.[43]

Recognition[edit]

Throughout his career, Katz has been the recipient of numerous awards, including The John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Fellowship for Painting in 1972, and in 1987, both Pratt Institute‘s Mary Buckley Award for Achievement and The Queens Museum of Art Award for Lifetime Achievement. The Chicago Bar Association honored Katz with the Award for Art in Public Places in 1985. In 1978, Katz received the U.S. Government grant to participate in an educational and cultural exchange with the USSR.[44] Katz was awarded the John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship for Painting in 1972. Katz was inducted by the American Academy of Arts and Letters in 1988, and recognized with honorary doctorates by Colby College, Maine (1984) and Colgate University, Hamilton, New York, (2005). In 1990 he was elected into the National Academy of Design as an Associate member, and became a full Academician in 1994. He was named the Philip Morris Distinguished Artist at the American Academy in Berlin in 2001 and received the Cooper Union Annual Artist of the City Award in 2000. In addition to this honor, in 1994 Cooper Union Art School created the Alex Katz Visiting Chair in Painting with an endowment provided by the sale of ten paintings donated by the artist, a position first held by the painter and art critic Merlin James.[45] In 2005, Katz was the honored artist at the Chicago Humanities Festival‘s Inaugural Richard Gray Annual Visual Arts Series. In 2007, he was honoured with a Lifetime Achievement Award from the National Academy of Design, New York.[37]

In October 1996, the Colby College Museum of Art opened a 10,000-square-foot wing dedicated to Katz that features more than 400 oil paintings, collages, and prints donated by the artist.[46] In addition, he has purchased numerous pieces for the museum by artists such as Jennifer Bartlett, Chuck Close, Francesco Clemente, Elizabeth Murray. In 2004, he curated a show at Colby of younger painters Elizabeth Peyton, Peter Doig and Merlin James, who work in the same figurative territory staked out by Katz.[2]

In 1996, Vincent Katz and Vivien Bittencourt produced a video titled Alex Katz: Five Hours, documenting the production of his painting January 3.[47] and in 2008 he was the subject of a documentary directed by Heinz Peter Schwerfel, entitled What About Style? Alex Katz: a Painter’s Painter.

Legacy[edit]

Katz’ work is said to have influenced many following painters, such as David Salle, Peter Halley and Richard Prince,[13] as well as younger artists like Peter Doig, Julian Opie, Liam Gillick, Elizabeth Peyton, Barb Januszkiewicz, Johan Andersson,[19] and Brian Alfred.[15] Furthermore, it has become ubiquitous in advertising and graphic design.[citation needed]

Notes and references[edit]

  1. Jump up^ Snider, Suzanne, “Why do Alex Katz’s elegant canvases strike critics as the ultimate in WASP art?”, Tablet, A New Read on Jewish Life, November 21, 2006
  2. ^ Jump up to:a b c Cathleen McGuigan (August 2009), Alex Katz Is Cooler Than Ever Smithsonian Magazine.
  3. ^ Jump up to:a b ALEX KATZ: Selections from the Whitney Museum of American Art, June 29 – October 13, 2013 Nassau County Museum of Art, Roslyn Harbor.
  4. ^ Jump up to:a b Alex Katz. “Alex Katz”. Phaidon, 2005. p. 210.
  5. Jump up^ Grace Glueck (September 9, 2005), Clever Collages and Quiet Maine Scenes: Two Sides of Alex Katz New York Times.
  6. Jump up^ “Alex Katz in Conversation with Phong Bui”. Brooklyn Rail. May 2009.
  7. Jump up^ Shama, Simon, Dave Hickey, Alanna Heiss. “Alex Katz Under the Stars: American Landscapes 1951–1995” (exh. cat.). New York: The Institute for Contemporary Art/ P. S. 1 Museum, 1996.
  8. Jump up^ Robert Ayers (January 18, 2006), National Alex Katz, ARTINFO, retrieved 2008-04-16
  9. Jump up^ David Salle (March 4, 2013), In Conversation, The Brooklyn Rail, retrieved 2013-07-22
  10. Jump up^ Alex Katz Museum of Modern Art, New York.
  11. Jump up^ Alex Katz, Lilies Against Yellow House (1983) National Galleries of Scotland.
  12. Jump up^ Alex Katz: FACE THE MUSIC, October 20 – November 19, 20119 Galerie Thaddaeus Ropac, Paris.
  13. ^ Jump up to:a b Alex Katz, 19 May – 23 September 2012 Tate St Ives.
  14. Jump up^ Alex Katz: Fashion and Studies, January 14 – February 14, 2009 Galerie Thaddaeus Ropac, Paris.
  15. ^ Jump up to:a b Martha Schwendener (August 29, 2013), Overcoming the Orthodoxy of AbstractionNew York Times.
  16. Jump up^ Lawrence Alloway, “Alex Katz Paints Ada” Yale University Press, 2006. p. 93.
  17. Jump up^ Carter Ratcliff, “Alex Katz, Cutouts” Hatje Cantz Publishers, 2003, p. 26
  18. Jump up^ Karen Rosenberg (February 13, 2014), Alex Katz / Dara Friedman New York Times.
  19. ^ Jump up to:a b Alastair Sooke (May 17, 2010), Alex Katz at the National Portrait Gallery The Daily Telegraph.
  20. Jump up^ Alex Katz, “Invented Symbols”, Cantz Verlag, 1997, p. 87
  21. Jump up^ Cathleen McGuigan (200), National Alex Katz, Smithsonian Magazine, retrieved 2011-01-25
  22. Jump up^ “Alex Katz – Public Art”.
  23. Jump up^ “Alex Katz – Public Art”.
  24. Jump up^ Berrigan, Ted et al. (Kenward Elmslie, John Godfrey, Ted Greenwald, Michael Lally, Ann Lauterbach, Gerard Malanga, Alice Notley, John Perreault, Carter Ratcliff, Rene Ricard, Peter Schjeldahl, Tony Towle, Bill Zavatsky) and Alex Katz “Face of the Poet”, New York: Brooke Alexander, Inc., NY and Marlborough Graphics, 1978.
  25. Jump up^ Ashbery, John and Alex Katz, “Fragment” Los Angeles: Black Sparrow Press, 1966
  26. Jump up^ Ashbery, John and Alex Katz, “Coma Berenices”. Photogravure images by Alex Katz; with text by John Ashbery. Tampa: Graphicstudio, Institute for Research in Art, 2005.]
  27. Jump up^ Katz, Vincent and Alex Katz, “A Tremor In The Morning”, New York: Peter Blum Edition, 1986.]
  28. Jump up^ Katz, Vincent and Alex Katz, “Swimming Home”, Photogravure images by Alex Katz with poem by Vincent Katz. Tampa: Graphicstudio/University of South Florida, 2011.
  29. Jump up^ Creeley, Robert and Alex Katz, “Edges” New York: Peter Blum Edition, 1998.]
  30. Jump up^ Creeley, Robert, “Ligeia: A Libretto” Set design sketch by Alex Katz. New York and Minneapolis: Granary Books; Hermetic Press, 1996.
  31. Jump up^ Koch, Kenneth and Alex Katz, “Interlocking Lives” New York: Kulchur Press, 1970.
  32. Jump up^ Schwartz, Sanford and Vincent Katz. “Alex Katz in Maine”. Milan, Italy and Rockland, Maine: Charta; The Farnsworth Art Museum, 2005.
  33. Jump up^ Bonet, Juan Manuel. New York. Dublin, Ireland: Irish Museum of Modern art and Charta, 2007.
  34. Jump up^ Moos, David and Kadee Robbins, “Alex Katz Seeing Drawing Making”, WIndsor Press, 2008.
  35. Jump up^ [1] http://www.parkettart.com
  36. Jump up^ Alex Katz: An American Way of Seeing”. Sara Hilden Art Museum, Musee de Grenoble, Museum Kurhaus Kleve, 2009. p. 130.
  37. ^ Jump up to:a b Alex Katz Timothy Taylor Gallery, London.
  38. Jump up^ Roberta Smith (May 1, 1998), A 2d Look Reveals Surprises New York Times.
  39. Jump up^ Sarah Douglas (September 13, 2011), (When Gavin Brown Met Alex Katz: An Artist’s New Show Is At An Unexpected Venue New York Observer.
  40. Jump up^ Alex Katz, September 10 – October 08, 2011 Gavin Brown’s enterprise, New York.
  41. Jump up^ Alex Katz, 4 March – 9 April 2010 Timothy Taylor Gallery, London.
  42. Jump up^ “ARTIST ROOMS: Alex Katz – Tate”.
  43. Jump up^ Alex Katz Prints, April 28, 2012 – July 29, 2012 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
  44. Jump up^ Sara Hilden Art Museum “Alex Katz: An American Way of Seeing”. Sara Hilden Art Museum, Musee de Grenoble, Museum Kurhaus Kleve, 2009. p. 130.
  45. Jump up^ James, Merlin. “Painting per se” lecture delivered at Cooper Union Great Hall, New York, 28th February 2002.
  46. Jump up^ colby.edu, accessed September 21, 2007.
  47. Jump up^ [2] http://www.alexkatz.com

Bibliography[edit]

External links[edit]

________________________
Alex Katz

 ________

Related posts:

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 135 H. J. Blackham Part C Featured artist is Richard Anuszkiewicz

________     H. J. Blackham H. J. Blackham, (31 March 1903 – 23 January 2009), was a leading and widely respected British humanist for most of his life. As a young man he worked in farming and as a teacher. He found his niche as a leader in the Ethical Union, which he steadfastly […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 134 H.J.Blackham Part B (Featured artist is Richard M. Loving)

H.J.Blackham pictured below: I had to pleasure of corresponding with Paul Kurtz in the 1990’s and he like H. J. Blackham firmly believed that religion was needed to have a basis for morals. At H. J. Blackham’s funeral in 2009 these words were read from Paul Kurtz: Paul Kurtz Founder and Chair, Prometheus Books and the […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 133 A Portion of my 1994 letter to H. J. Blackham on the 10th Anniversary of Francis Schaeffer’s passing (Featured artist is Billy Al Bengston )

H. J. Blackham pictured below:   On May 15, 1994 on the 10th anniversary of the passing of Francis Schaeffer I sent a letter to H.J. Blackham and here is a portion of that letter below: I have enclosed a cassette tape by Adrian Rogers and it includes  a story about  Charles Darwin‘s journey from […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 132 Part D Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Ronald Davis )

  I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December 27, 2015 at the age of 92. Who were the artists who influenced […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 131 Part C Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Janet Fish )

__ I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December 27, 2015 at the age of 92.       Who were the […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 130 Part B Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Art Green )

Andy, Ellsworth Kelly, Richard Koshalek and unidentified guest, 1980s I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December 27, 2015 at the age […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 129 Part A Ellsworth Kelly (Featured artist is Sherrie Levine )

How Should We Then Live – Episode 8 – The Age of Fragmentation   I featured the artwork of Ellsworth Kelly on my blog both on November 23, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Also I mailed him a letter on November 23, 2015, but I never heard back from him.  Unfortunately he died on December […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 128 Will Provine, Determinism, Part F (Featured artist is Pierre Soulages )

Today I am bringing this series on William Provine to an end.  Will Provine’s work was cited by  Francis Schaeffer  in his book WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? I noted: I was sad to learn of Dr. Provine’s death. William Ball “Will” Provine (February 19, 1942 – September 1, 2015) He grew up an […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 127 Will Provine, Killer of the myth of Optimistic Humanism Part E (Featured artist is Jim Dine )

___ Setting the record straight was Will Provine’s widow Gail when she stated, “[Will] did not believe in an ULTIMATE meaning in life (i.e. God’s plan), but he did believe in proximate meaning (i.e. relationships with people — friendship and especially LOVE🙂 ). So one’s existence is ultimately senseless and useless, but certainly not to those […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 126 Will Provine, Killer of the myth of Optimistic Humanism Part D (Featured artists are Elena and Olivia Ceballos )

I was sad when I learned of Will Provine’s death. He was a very engaging speaker on the subject of Darwinism and I think he correctly realized what the full ramifications are when accepting evolution. This is the fourth post I have done on Dr. Provine and the previous ones are these links, 1st, 2nd […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY First Look at Woody Allen’s Next Movie ‘Wonder Wheel’ Posted on Tuesday, February 21st, 2017 by Jack Giroux

Woody Allen's next movie

Another period piece is coming our way from writer-director Woody Allen. We know little about his latest movie, titled Wonder Wheel, which is typical of Allen’s movies. Rarely are character and plot details shared early on. But we do know his latest film stars Justin Timberlake, Kate Winslet, and Juno Temple and it takes place in the 1950s.

Below, check out the first photo from Woody Allen’s next movie.

Wonder Wheel is the famous Ferris wheel found in Coney Island. Allen spent three weeks there shooting last summer, making it his first time shooting there since Annie Hall. The Wonder Wheel does appear in that film. Allen’s story follows characters working on and around the boardwalk.

Allen’s latest co-stars Jim Belushi (According to Jim), Max Casella (Blue Valentine), and Steve Schirripa (The Sopranos). According to The Coney Island blog, Winslet plays a character “targeted by” by Tony Sirico‘s (The Sopranos) character. She ends up falling for Timberlake’s lifeguard.

Here’s a photo from Wonder Wheel (via Woody Allen Pages):

Allen spent a good amount of time shooting the boardwalk and the city last summer. He joked with Page Six a little about recreating the period and locations:

This movie’s set in the ’50s, and we’re re-creating the Parachute Jump. Even sunny beaches. It’s no longer my job to have to run around and find that anymore. Today we live in the future. While I’m home, some nerd wearing glasses in an office with a computer turns dials and creates sunny beaches. Justin Timberlake, Jim Belushi, Juno Temple are in this. We’re filming in The Bronx and all over the city.

Allen’s 47th film is expected to come out this year. Over the past couple of years, his movies are often released during the summertime. Amazon released his last picture, the disappointing Cafe Society, last July. The distributor has a good relationship with Allen, after releasing his last Hollywood-set comedy and making his seriesCrisis in Six Scenes. According to THR, they spent $25 million to finance Wonder Wheel. Allen’s movies had a home at Sony Pictures Classics the last few years, but he apparently has struck up a fruitful partnership with Amazon.

While Allen’s movies have been more hit or miss the past decade or so, when he makes a hit, it’s usually quite special. When he misses, at least there’s still a few laughs. Let’s hope Wonder Wheel is another hit from the filmmaker.

Related posts:

WOODY WEDNESDAY Settling into a hotel bar in Soho after a long day shooting a film for Woody Allen in the Bronx, Justin Timberlake wastes no time ordering the first of several Vesper martinis. “I was terrified all day today, dude,”

___________ Justin Timberlake Talks ‘Trolls,’ Family Life and His New Album With Pharrell Williams Andrew Barker Senior Features Writer@barkerrant TOM MUNRO FOR VARIETY NOVEMBER 1, 2016 | 10:00AM PT Settling into a hotel bar in Soho after a long day shooting a film for Woody Allen in the Bronx, Justin Timberlake wastes no time ordering […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY Woody Allen’s 81st Birthday

_ Woody Allen – standup – ’65 – RARE! Happy 81st Birthday, Woody Allen December 2, 2016 1 Comment Woody Allen turns 81 today. And he shows no signs of slowing down. Allen spent his 80th year being remarkably prolific, even by his own standards. The end of 2015 saw that year’s film, Irrational Man, […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY Everything We Know About Woody Allen’s 2017 Film With Kate Winslet And Justin Timberlake October 16, 2016

  _ Everything We Know About Woody Allen’s 2017 Film With Kate Winslet And Justin Timberlake October 16, 2016 3 Comments Woody Allen has, it seems, wrapped production on his 2017 Film. The new film stars Kate Winlset and Justin Timberlake. And despite some very public days of shooting, We still don’t know that much […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY At 79, Woody Allen Says There’s Still Time To Do His Best Work JULY 29, 2015 5:03 PM ET

_____________ Woody Allen – The Atheist At 79, Woody Allen Says There’s Still Time To Do His Best Work JULY 29, 2015 5:03 PM ET When asked about his major shortcomings, filmmaker Woody Allen says, “I’m lazy and an imperfectionist.” Thibault Camus/AP Woody Allen is a prolific filmmaker — he’s been releasing films pretty much […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY Midnight in Paris: TAP’s Movie of the Month for June 2015 JUNE 1, 2015 by TAP Adventures

Midnight in Paris: TAP’s Movie of the Month for June 2015 JUNE 1, 2015 by TAP Adventures Each month in TAP, we select a Movie of the Month to help prepare our students for their overseas trip. This month we’re starting to prepare for our 2016 adventure in France and the Benelux countries, so we’ve selected […]

“Woody Wednesday” An Interview with Woody Allen Woody Allen’s World: Whatever Works Robert E. Lauder April 15, 2010 – 2:31pm

This interview   below reveals Woody Allen’s nihilistic views and reminds me of his best movie which is  CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS!!!! Crimes and Misdemeanors 1989 Woody Allen Woody Allen Crimes and Misdemeanors Nihilism Nietzsche’s Death of God An Interview with Woody Allen Woody Allen’s World: Whatever Works Robert E. Lauder April 15, 2010 – 2:31pm Woody […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY Woody’s Cold Comforts Robert E. Lauder April 19, 2010

Top 10 Woody Allen Movies   Woody’s Cold Comforts Robert E. LauderApril 19, 2010 – 1:36pm Friends have often asked me about my interest in the films of Woody Allen: Why is a Catholic priest such an ardent admirer of the work of an avowed atheist, an artist who time and again has insisted on […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY New bio reassesses Woody Allen at 80 James Endrst , Special for USA TODAY2:03 p.m. EST November 7, 2015

Woody Allen & Parker Posey Red-Carpet Interviews for ‘Irrational Man’ New bio reassesses Woody Allen at 80 James Endrst , Special for USA TODAY2:03 p.m. EST November 7, 2015 Woody: The Biography by  David Evanier  (St. Martin’s Press) in Biography Buy Now USA TODAY Rating Woody Allen turns 80 on Dec. 1 and David Evanier has […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY A Handy Guide to All the Philosophers Referenced in Irrational Man by Eliza Berman July 17, 2015

___ Existentialism and the Meaningful Life [The Common Room] Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR A Handy Guide to All the Philosophers Referenced in Irrational Man Eliza Berman @lizabeaner July 17, 2015 David Livingston–Getty ImagesJoaquin Phoenix and Emma Stone attend the premiere of “Irrational Man” in Los Angeles on July 9, 2015. Leave it […]

Woody Wednesday All 47 Woody Allen movies – ranked from worst to best Part H

Woody Wednesday All 47 Woody Allen movies – ranked from worst to best (L-R): Annie Hall, Sleeper and To Rome With Love Robbie Collin, Film Critic Tim Robey, Film Critic 12 October 2016 • 2:55pm Annie Hall or Bananas? Blue Jasmine or Sleeper? Our critics Robbie Collin and Tim Robey rank all 47 Woody Allen movies […]

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Part 120 Caroline Humphrey , Asian Anthropology, King’s College, “Though I am not very active now;  I think the culture of religion or what religious people have done in our history is so huge and enormous, I mean it is so much the background of being an European person that you can’t ignore it”

 

On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said:

…Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975

and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.

Harry Kroto

 

Nick Gathergood, David-Birkett, Harry-Kroto

I have attempted to respond to all of Dr. Kroto’s friends arguments and I have posted my responses one per week for over a year now. Here are some of my earlier posts:

Arif Ahmed, Sir David AttenboroughMark Balaguer, Horace Barlow, Michael BatePatricia ChurchlandAaron CiechanoverNoam Chomsky,Alan DershowitzHubert Dreyfus, Bart Ehrman, Stephan FeuchtwangDavid Friend,  Riccardo GiacconiIvar Giaever , Roy GlauberRebecca GoldsteinDavid J. Gross,  Brian Greene, Susan GreenfieldStephen F Gudeman,  Alan Guth, Jonathan HaidtTheodor W. Hänsch, Brian Harrison,  Hermann HauserRoald Hoffmann,  Bruce HoodHerbert Huppert,  Gareth Stedman Jones, Steve JonesShelly KaganMichio Kaku,  Stuart Kauffman,  Lawrence KraussHarry Kroto, George LakoffElizabeth Loftus,  Alan MacfarlanePeter MillicanMarvin MinskyLeonard Mlodinow,  Yujin NagasawaAlva NoeDouglas Osheroff,  Jonathan Parry,  Saul PerlmutterHerman Philipse,  Carolyn PorcoRobert M. PriceLisa RandallLord Martin Rees,  Oliver Sacks, John SearleMarcus du SautoySimon SchafferJ. L. Schellenberg,   Lee Silver Peter Singer,  Walter Sinnott-ArmstrongRonald de Sousa, Victor StengerBarry Supple,   Leonard Susskind, Raymond TallisNeil deGrasse Tyson,  .Alexander Vilenkin, Sir John WalkerFrank WilczekSteven Weinberg, and  Lewis Wolpert,

Interview with Caroline Humphrey

Published on Sep 4, 2012

Caroline Humphrey interviewed by Alan Macfarlane 5th August 2010.

All revenues are donated to the World Oral Literature Project: http://www.oralliterature.org/

For a full, higher quality, downloadable version, please see http://www.alanmacfarlane.co

Wikipedia notes:

Caroline Humphrey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dame Caroline Humphrey, Lady Rees of Ludlow, DBE, FBA (née Waddington, born 1 September 1943) is a British anthropologist and academic.

Biography[edit]

Humphrey’s father was the biologist Conrad H. Waddington.[1]

Humphrey received her BA in Social Anthropology from Girton College, Cambridge. Her PhD, completed in 1973, was entitled Magical Drawings in the Religion of the Buryat. She received the Rivers Memorial Medal in 1999,[2] and, in 2003, an Honorary Doctorate from the National University of Mongolia.[3]

Personal life[edit]

In 1967, Caroline Waddington married Nicholas Humphrey; they had no children and divorced in 1977. In 1986, she married Martin Rees, and became Lady Rees after her husband was appointed a Knight Bachelor in 1992.[4]

Research and Positions[edit]

Humphrey has conducted extensive research in Siberia, Nepal, India, Mongolia, China (Inner Mongolia), Uzbekistan and Ukraine. In 1966, she was one of the first anthropologists from a western country to be allowed to do fieldwork in the USSR. Her PhD (1973) focussed on Buryat religious iconography, and ensuing research topics have included Soviet collective farms, the farming economy in India and Tibet, Jainist culture in India, and environmental and cultural conservation in Inner Asia.[5]

Between 1971 and 1978, she undertook research and official fellowships at Girton College, Cambridge and at the Scott Polar Research Institute. From 1978 to 1983 she lectured at the Department of Social Anthropology at the University of Cambridge, before becoming a Director of Studies in Archaeology and Anthropology in 1984-89, and 1992-96. Humphrey has held the posts of University Reader in Asian Anthropology, University of Cambridge, 1995-98; University Professor of Asian Anthropology, 1998–2006; Visiting Professor at the University of Michigan, 2000; and Rausing Professorship of Collaborative Anthropology, 2006–10.

She co-founded the Mongolia and Inner Asia Studies Unit (MIASU) in 1986 at Cambridge. She retired from her post as Sigrid Rausing Professor of Collaborative Anthropology at the University of Cambridge to become Voluntary Research Director of MIASU in October 2010.[6]

She has been a Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge since 1978. In 2010, she completed the manuscript of a monograph, jointly authored with Hurelbaatar Ujeed, entitled A Monastery in Time: the Making of Mongolian Buddhism. The book was the culmination of much fieldwork and visits, from 1995, to Mergen Monastery in the Urad region of Inner Mongolia (China), where a distinctive form of Mongolian-language Buddhism has been upheld since the 18th century.

In  the second video below in the 72nd clip in this series are her words and  my response is below them. 

50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 1)

Another 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 2)

A Further 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 3)

 

Below is a letter I wrote to her responding to the quote:

March 17, 2015

Professor Caroline Humphrey, Asian Anthropology, King’s College,

Dear Dr. Humphrey,

I was very honored on the 13th day January of 2015 to get this email back from your husband:

Your letter and its attachments has arrived. Sincerest thanks for getting in touch. Yes, I have had the privilege of knowing Owen Gingerich for many years and have recently read his excellent new book. I share emotions of mystery and wonder with religious people, but don’t have any ‘beliefs’ — and indeed wouldn’t expect human brains to be capable of more than a very incomplete and metaphorical understanding of deep reality – even a single atom is hard for most people to understand! Regards and thanks Martin Rees

Your husband was very gracious to take the time to get back to me and he is a classy guy!!!! I actually sent him a  CD called IS THE BIBLE TRUE? that discusses the historical accuracy of the Bible and it is the same exact message  that I sent in cassette tape form to Antony Flew in 1994 and Dr. Flew said he enjoyed it and we corresponded several times in the 1990’s. It is truly ironic to me that the same Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, Tennessee where I bought that original cassette tape in 1994 is the same church in 2007 where I bought Antony Flew’s book THERE IS A GOD.

I just finished reading the online addition of the book Darwin, Francis ed. 1892. Charles Darwin: his life told in an autobiographical chapter, and in a selected series of his published letters [abridged edition]. London: John Murray. There are several points that Charles Darwin makes in this book that were very wise, honest, logical, shocking and some that were not so wise. The Christian Philosopher Francis Schaeffer once said of Darwin’s writings, “Darwin in his autobiography and in his letters showed that all through his life he never really came to a quietness concerning the possibility that chance really explained the situation of the biological world. You will find there is much material on this [from Darwin] extended over many many years that constantly he was wrestling with this problem.”

Recently I noticed these comments by you in that wonderful in-depth interview by Dr. Alan Macfarlane:

(FIRST PARAGRAPH) My grandmother was a Fabian and quite an  intellectual – Amber Pember Reeves; she read moral sciences at Newnham and she  was a big influence on my life: she had an affair with H.G. Wells when she was  a student which was a big scandal at the time; she became pregnant so my aunt  is her daughter by H.G. Wells; as he was not going to marry her, to her rescue  came a nice young lawyer, my grandfather, who made her respectable; his name  was Blanco-White…

(SECOND PARAGRAPH) …I do remember in my teens thinking  I ought to sneak out and actually go to churches to see what went on in them; I  did try to look inside some churches in Edinburgh, but it was a pretty frosty  city and the churches were not places you could drop into; I suppose I was  rather ignorant of all that and remain so to some extent; when, here in  Cambridge, people go to chapel, and I have to do so now for various reasons,  everybody lustily sings hymns that they all know, but I don’t know them; I  think perhaps this thwarted early interest was why I became interested in  shamanism and other religious faiths; I also did become interested in  Christianity, and for a period was quite religious; I did get Confirmed in the  Church of England in middle-age,so it is a dimension of life that I have some  feeling for, though I am not very active now;  I think the culture of religion or what religious people have done in our history is so huge and enormous, I mean it is so much the background of being an European person that you can’t ignore it, and to understand it you have to know what it is to be religious….

(THIRD PARAGRAPH) …I think science can disprove many of  the claims of people who are religious – the absurdity of particular dates of  creation, or miracles – but I don’t think science could do anything about what  people feel about essential mysteries which we don’t understand and may never  understand, yet we have intimations that there are things that maybe our brains  are not capable of appreciating; at any rate there does seem to be some order  behind things that we don’t have an explanation for; all of that kind of thing  is part of being human, and I don’t think that science is going to disprove it  or prove it;

___________

You will notice I actually took three different quotes from your lengthy interview from Alan Macfarlane because I wanted to comment on all three parts.

In the second paragraph you noted that you used to involved in the Christian faith but like Darwin you now consider yourself an agnostic. I wondered if you have struggled with the same issues that Darwin did while losing his faith? In the first  paragraph you noted your family’s connection to the historian H.G.Wells and in the third paragraph you asserted that some claims of the Bible can be disproved by science. I totally agree that could be the cause. Take a look at this quote below.

ADRIAN ROGERS FROM HIS MESSAGE ON “DARWINISM” (which I sent to you today):

H. G. Wells, the brilliant historian who wrote The Outlines of History, said this—and I quote: “If all animals and man evolved, then there were no first parents, and no Paradise, and no Fall. If there had been no Fall, then the entire historic fabric of Christianity, the story of the first sin, and the reason for the atonement, collapses like a house of cards.” H. G. Wells says—and, by the way, I don’t believe that he did believe in creation—but he said, “If there’s no creation, then you’ve ripped away the foundation of Christianity.”

Now, the Bible teaches that man was created by God and that he fell into sin. The evolutionist believes that he started in some primordial soup and has been coming up and up. And, these two ideas are diametrically opposed. What we call sin the evolutionist would just call a stumble up. And so, the evolutionist believes that all a man needs—he’s just going up and up, and better and better—he needs a boost from beneath. The Bible teaches he’s a sinner and needs a birth from above. And, these are both at heads, in collision.

__________

You should realize that if there was no Garden of Eden then all the historicity of the Bible crumbles with it. Therefore, I wanted to challenge you to google some of these historical events and see what you find:  1. The Babylonian Chronicleof Nebuchadnezzars Siege of Jerusalem2. Hezekiah’s Siloam Tunnel Inscription. 3. Taylor Prism (Sennacherib Hexagonal Prism)4. Biblical Cities Attested Archaeologically. 5. The Discovery of the Hittites6.Shishak Smiting His Captives7. Moabite Stone8Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III9A Verification of places in Gospel of John and Book of Acts., 9B Discovery of Ebla Tablets10. Cyrus Cylinder11. Puru “The lot of Yahali” 9th Century B.C.E.12. The Uzziah Tablet Inscription13. The Pilate Inscription14. Caiaphas Ossuary14 B Pontius Pilate Part 214c. Three greatest American Archaeologists moved to accept Bible’s accuracy through archaeology.

Now lets move on to two passions of your father and they are  art and science. Does the world fit the chance universe that your famous father C.H. Waddington envisioned? As you know John Cage and him tried to combine them!!!!!

Recently I read that John Cage was invited by C.H. Waddington to speak at a symposium back in the 1970’s entitled, “Biology and the History of the Future” sponsored by the International Union of Biological Sciences in an attempt to “promote reciprocity between the arts and sciences.” His contributions to the symposium were edited by Waddington and published by Edinburgh University Press in 1972.

I wanted to share a paragraph I read in the article “NOWHERE ELSE TO TURN:CHANCE VERSUS DESIGN:” 

In THE GOD WHO IS THERE, Francis Schaeffer refers to the American composer John Cage who believes that the universe is impersonal by nature and that it originated only through pure chance.  In an attempt to live consistently with this personal philosophy, Cage composes all of his music by various chance agencies.  He uses, among other things, the tossing of coins and the rolling of dice to make sure that no personal element enters into the final product.  The result is music that has no form, no structure and, for the most part, no appeal.  Though Cage’s professional life accurately reflects his belief in a universe that has no order, his personal life does not, for his favorite pastime is mycology, the collecting of mushrooms, and because of the potentially lethal results of picking a wrong mushroom, he cannot approach it on a purely by-chance basis.  Concerning that, he states: “I became aware that if I approached mushrooms in the spirit of my chance operations, I would die shortly.”  John Cage “believes” one thing, but practices another.  In doing so, he is an example of the person described in Romans 1:18 who “suppresses the truth of God,” for when faced with the certainty of order in the universe, he still clings to his theory of randomness.

This  from  John Cage made me think of you and your father  when I read the book Charles Darwin: his life told in an autobiographical chapter, and in a selected series of his published letters  because of what Darwin said on this same issue of intelligent design. IS THIS WORLD A RESULT OF TIME AND CHANCE OR WAS IS CREATED BY A DESIGNER? I am going to quote some of Charles Darwin’s own words and then include the comments of Francis Schaeffer on those words. I have also enclosed a CD with two messages from Adrian Rogers and Bill Elliff concerning Darwinism.

Darwin, C. R. to Doedes, N. D.2 Apr 1873

“It is impossible to answer your question briefly; and I am not sure that I could do so, even if I wrote at some length. But I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide…Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am aware that if we admit a First Cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came, and how it arose.”

Francis Schaeffer noted:

What he is saying is if you say there is a first cause, then the mind says, “Where did this come from?” I think this is a bit old fashioned, with some of the modern thinkers, this would not have carry as much weight today as it did when Darwin expressed it. Jean Paul Sartre said it as well as anyone could possibly say it. The philosophic problem is that something is there and not nothing being there. No one has the luxury of beginning with nothing. Nobody I have ever read has put forth that everything came from nothing. I have never met such a person in all my reading,or all my discussion. If you are going to begin with nothing being there, it has to be nothing nothing, and it can’t be something nothing. When someone says they believe nothing is there, in reality they have already built in something there. The only question is do you begin with an impersonal something or a personal something. All human thought is shut up to these two possibilities. Either you begin with an impersonal and then have Darwin’s own dilemma which impersonal plus chance, now he didn’t bring in the amount of time that modern man would though. Modern man has brought in huge amounts of time into the equation as though that would make a difference because I have said many times that time can’t make a qualitative difference but only a quantitative difference. The dilemma is it is either God or chance. Now you find this intriguing thing in Darwin’s own situation, he can’t understand how chance could have produced these two great factors of the universe and its form and the mannishness of man.

From Charles Darwin, Autobiography (1876), in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, ed. Francis Darwin, vol. 1 (London: John Murray, 1888), pp. 307 to 313.

“Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species, and it is since that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker. But then arises the doubt…”

Francis Schaeffer commented:

On the basis of his reason he has to say there must be an intelligent mind, someone analogous to man. You couldn’t describe the God of the Bible better. That is man is made in God’s image  and therefore, you know a great deal about God when you know something about man. What he is really saying here is that everything in my experience tells me it must be so, and my mind demands it is so. Not just these feelings he talked about earlier but his MIND demands it is so, but now how does he counter this? How does he escape this? Here is how he does it!!!

Charles Darwin went on to observe:  —can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?”

Francis Schaeffer asserted:

So he says my mind can only come to one conclusion, and that is there is a mind behind it all. However, the doubt comes because his mind has come from the lowest form of earthworm, so how can I trust my mind. But this is a joker isn’t it?  Then how can you trust his mind to support such a theory as this? He proved too much. The fact that Darwin found it necessary to take such an escape shows the tremendous weight of Romans 1, that the only escape he can make is to say how can I trust my mind when I come from the lowest animal the earthworm? Obviously think of the grandeur of his concept, I don’t think it is true, but the grandeur of his concept, so what you find is that Darwin is presenting something here that is wrong I feel, but it is not nothing. It is a tremendously grand concept that he has put forward. So he is accepting the dictates of his mind to put forth a grand concept which he later can’t accept in this basic area with his reason, but he rejects what he could accept with his reason on this escape. It really doesn’t make sense. This is a tremendous demonstration of the weakness of his own position.

Darwin also noted, “I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us, and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.”

Francis Schaeffer remarked:

What a stupid reply and I didn’t say wicked. It just seems to me that here is 2 plus 2 equals 36 at this particular place.

Darwin, C. R. to Graham, William 3 July 1881

Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance.* But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?

Francis Schaeffer observed:

Can you feel this man? He is in real agony. You can feel the whole of modern man in this tension with Darwin. My mind can’t accept that ultimate of chance, that the universe is a result of chance. He has said 3 or 4 times now that he can’t accept that it all happened by chance and then he will write someone else and say something different. How does he say this (about the mind of a monkey) and then put forth this grand theory? Wrong theory I feel but great just the same. Grand in the same way as when I look at many of the paintings today and I differ with their message but you must say the mark of the mannishness of man are one those paintings titanic-ally even though the message is wrong and this is the same with Darwin.  But how can he say you can’t think, you come from a monkey’s mind, and you can’t trust a monkey’s mind, and you can’t trust a monkey’s conviction, so how can you trust me? Trust me here, but not there is what Darwin is saying. In other words it is very selective. 

Now we are down to the last year of Darwin’s life.

* The Duke of Argyll (Good Words, April 1885, p. 244) has recorded a few words on this subject, spoken by my father in the last year of his life. “. . . in the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of Orchids, and upon The Earthworms,and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin’s answer. He looked at me very hard and said, ‘Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,’ and he shook his head vaguely, adding, ‘it seems to go away.'”

Francis Schaeffer summarized :

And this is the great Darwin, and it makes you cry inside. This is the great Darwin and he ends as a man in total tension.

Francis Schaeffer noted that in Darwin’s 1876 Autobiography that Darwin he is going to set forth two arguments for God in this and again you will find when he comes to the end of this that he is in tremendous tension. Darwin wrote, 

At the present day the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons.Formerly I was led by feelings such as those just referred to (although I do not think that the religious sentiment was ever strongly developed in me), to the firm conviction of the existence of God and of the immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, ‘it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion which fill and elevate the mind.’ I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body; but now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind. It may be truly said that I am like a man who has become colour-blind.

Francis Schaeffer remarked:

Now Darwin says when I look back and when I look at nature I came to the conclusion that man can not be just a fly! But now Darwin has moved from being a younger man to an older man and he has allowed his presuppositions to enter in to block his logic. These things at the end of his life he had no intellectual answer for. To block them out in favor of his theory. Remember the letter of his that said he had lost all aesthetic senses when he had got older and he had become a clod himself. Now interesting he says just the same thing, but not in relation to the arts, namely music, pictures, etc, but to nature itself. Darwin said, “But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions  and feelings to rise in my mind. It may be truly said that I am like a man who has become colour-blind…” So now you see that Darwin’s presuppositions have not only robbed him of the beauty of man’s creation in art, but now the universe. He can’t look at it now and see the beauty. The reason he can’t see the beauty is for a very, very , very simple reason: THE BEAUTY DRIVES HIM TO DISTRACTION. THIS IS WHERE MODERN MAN IS AND IT IS HELL. The art is hell because it reminds him of man and how great man is, and where does it fit in his system? It doesn’t. When he looks at nature and it’s beauty he is driven to the same distraction and so consequently you find what has built up inside him is a real death, not  only the beauty of the artistic but the beauty of nature. He has no answer in his logic and he is left in tension.  He dies and has become less than human because these two great things (such as any kind of art and the beauty of  nature) that would make him human  stand against his theory.

________________________

DO THESE WORDS OF DARWIN APPLY TO YOU TODAY? “I am like a man who has become colour-blind.”

_______________________________________

IF WE ARE LEFT WITH JUST THE MACHINE THEN WHAT IS THE FINAL CONCLUSION IF THERE WAS NO PERSONAL GOD THAT CREATED US? I sent you a CD that starts off with the song DUST IN THE WIND by Kerry Livgren of the group KANSAS which was a hit song in 1978 when it rose to #6 on the charts because so many people connected with the message of the song. It included these words, “All we do, crumbles to the ground though we refuse to see, Dust in the Wind, All we are is dust in the wind, Don’t hang on, Nothing lasts forever but the Earth and Sky, It slips away, And all your money won’t another minute buy.”

Kerry Livgren himself said that he wrote the song because he saw where man was without a personal God in the picture. Solomon pointed out in the Book of Ecclesiastes that those who believe that God doesn’t exist must accept three things. FIRST, death is the end and SECOND, chance and time are the only guiding forces in this life.  FINALLY, power reigns in this life and the scales are never balanced. The Christian can  face death and also confront the world knowing that it is not determined by chance and time alone and finally there is a judge who will balance the scales.

Both Kerry Livgren and the bass player Dave Hope of Kansas became Christians eventually. Kerry Livgren first tried Eastern Religions and Dave Hope had to come out of a heavy drug addiction. I was shocked and elated to see their personal testimony on The 700 Club in 1981 and that same  interview can be seen on You Tube today. Livgren lives in Topeka, Kansas today where he teaches “Diggers,” a Sunday school class at Topeka Bible ChurchDAVE HOPE is the head of Worship, Evangelism and Outreach at Immanuel Anglican Church in Destin, Florida.

The answer to find meaning in life is found in putting your faith and trust in Jesus Christ. The Bible is true from cover to cover and can be trusted.

Thank you again for your time and I know how busy you are.

Everette Hatcher, everettehatcher@gmail.com, http://www.thedailyhatch.org, cell ph 501-920-5733, Box 23416, LittleRock, AR 72221, United States

PS: I understand that you studied under the famous professor Edmund Leach. Some have said that he was a poor lecturer but I understand you liked his lectures. 

You can hear DAVE HOPE and Kerry Livgren’s stories from this youtube link:

(part 1 ten minutes)

(part 2 ten minutes)

Kansas – Dust in the Wind (Official Video)

Uploaded on Nov 7, 2009

Pre-Order Miracles Out of Nowhere now at http://www.miraclesoutofnowhere.com

About the film:
In 1973, six guys in a local band from America’s heartland began a journey that surpassed even their own wildest expectations, by achieving worldwide superstardom… watch the story unfold as the incredible story of the band KANSAS is told for the first time in the DVD Miracles Out of Nowhere.

_____________________________

Adrian Rogers on Darwinism

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

________________

American Masters John Cage- I Have Nothing to Say and I Am Saying It

John Cage – 4’33”

Uploaded on Oct 1, 2010

John Cage’s most famous musical composition is called 4’33”.

It consists of the pianist going to the piano, and not hitting any keys for four minutes and thirty-three seconds (he uses a stopwatch to time this). In other words, the entire piece consists of silences — silences of different lengths, they say…

(c) John Cage

________

Related posts:

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 53 THE BEATLES (Part E, Stg. Pepper’s and John Lennon’s search in 1967 for truth was through drugs, money, laughter, etc & similar to King Solomon’s, LOTS OF PICTURES OF JOHN AND CYNTHIA) (Feature on artist Yoko Ono)

The John Lennon and the Beatles really were on a long search for meaning and fulfillment in their lives  just like King Solomon did in the Book of Ecclesiastes. Solomon looked into learning (1:12-18, 2:12-17), laughter, ladies, luxuries, and liquor (2:1-2, 8, 10, 11), and labor (2:4-6, 18-20). He fount that without God in the picture all […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 52 THE BEATLES (Part D, There is evidence that the Beatles may have been exposed to Francis Schaeffer!!!) (Feature on artist Anna Margaret Rose Freeman )

______________   George Harrison Swears & Insults Paul and Yoko Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds- The Beatles The Beatles:   I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 51 THE BEATLES (Part C, List of those on cover of Stg.Pepper’s ) (Feature on artist Raqib Shaw )

  The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA Uploaded on Nov 29, 2010 The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA. The Beatles:   I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 50 THE BEATLES (Part B, The Psychedelic Music of the Beatles) (Feature on artist Peter Blake )

__________________   Beatles 1966 Last interview I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. In this […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 49 THE BEATLES (Part A, The Meaning of Stg. Pepper’s Cover) (Feature on artist Mika Tajima)

_______________ The Beatles documentary || A Long and Winding Road || Episode 5 (This video discusses Stg. Pepper’s creation I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 48 “BLOW UP” by Michelangelo Antonioni makes Philosophic Statement (Feature on artist Nancy Holt)

_______________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: _____________________ I have included the 27 minute  episode THE AGE OF NONREASON by Francis Schaeffer. In that video Schaeffer noted,  ” Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band…for a time it became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. It expressed the essence of their lives, thoughts and their feelings.” How Should […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 47 Woody Allen and Professor Levy and the death of “Optimistic Humanism” from the movie CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS Plus Charles Darwin’s comments too!!! (Feature on artist Rodney Graham)

Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 ___________________________________ Today I will answer the simple question: IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN OPTIMISTIC SECULAR HUMANIST THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR AN AFTERLIFE? This question has been around for a long time and you can go back to the 19th century and read this same […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 46 Friedrich Nietzsche (Featured artist is Thomas Schütte)

____________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: __________ Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” , episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”, episode 8 […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 45 Woody Allen “Reason is Dead” (Feature on artists Allora & Calzadilla )

Love and Death [Woody Allen] – What if there is no God? [PL] ___________ _______________ How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason) #02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer 10 Worldview and Truth Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100 Francis Schaeffer […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE Part 44 The Book of Genesis (Featured artist is Trey McCarley )

___________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ____________________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?) Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro) Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1) Dr. Francis Schaeffer […]

 

 

__

MUSIC MONDAY Rolling Stones 1965 December’s Children And Everybody’s full album

Rolling Stones 1965 December’s Children And Everybody’s full album

December’s Children (And Everybody’s)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
December’s Children (And Everybody’s)
DecChLP.jpg
Studio album by The Rolling Stones
Released 4 December 1965 (United States)
Recorded 5–6 September 1965, except “You Better Move On”: 8 August 1963, “Look What You’ve Done”: 11 June 1964, “Route 66” and “I’m Moving On”: 5–7 March 1965, “As Tears Go By”: 26 October 1965
Genre Rock and roll
Length 29:04
Language English
Label London
Producer Andrew Loog Oldham
The Rolling Stones American chronology
Out of Our Heads
(1965)
December’s Children (And Everybody’s)
(1965)
Aftermath
(1966)
Singles from December’s Children
(And Everybody’s)
  1. Get Off of My Cloud” / “I’m Free
    Released: 25 September 1965
  2. As Tears Go By” / “Gotta Get Away”
    Released: 18 December 1965
Professional ratings
Review scores
Source Rating
Allmusic 4.5/5 stars[1]

December’s Children (And Everybody’s) is the fifth American studio album by The Rolling Stones, released in late 1965. Drawn largely from two days of sessions recorded in September to finish the British edition of Out of Our Heads and to record their new single—”Get Off of My Cloud“—December’s Children (And Everybody’s) also included tracks recorded as early as 1963.

Half of the songs appearing on the album were written by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards; they penned album cuts such as “I’m Free” and “The Singer Not the Song” as well as such major hits as “As Tears Go By” and “Get off of My Cloud“.

December’s Children (And Everybody’s) reached No. 4 in the US and went gold.[2] Bassist Bill Wyman quotes Jagger in 1968 calling the record “[not] an album, it’s just a collection of songs.” Accordingly, it is only briefly detailed in Wyman’s otherwise exhaustive book Rolling with the Stones.

In August 2002 December’s Children (And Everybody’s) was reissued in a new remastered CD and SACD digipak by ABKCO Records with “Look What You’ve Done” again being the album’s only cut issued in true stereo.

The title of the album came from the band’s manager, Andrew Loog Oldham (who facetiously credits it to “Lou Folk-Rock Adler” in his liner notes on the back cover). According to Jagger, it was Oldham’s idea of hip, Beatpoetry.[3]

Track listing[edit]

All tracks written by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, unless otherwise noted.

Side one
No. Title Writer(s) Length
1. “She Said Yeah” (from UK version of “Out of Our Heads“) Sonny Bono/Roddy Jackson 1:34
2. Talkin’ About You” (from UK version of “Out of Our Heads“) Chuck Berry 2:32
3. You Better Move On” (from UK release “The Rolling Stones EP“) Arthur Alexander 2:41
4. “Look What You’ve Done” McKinley Morganfield 2:16
5. “The Singer, Not the Song” (UK b-side of “Get Off of My Cloud“) 2:22
6. Route 66” (from UK release “Got Live If You Want It! EP” (Live)) Bobby Troup 2:39
Side two
No. Title Writer(s) Length
7. Get Off of My Cloud” (single) 2:54
8. I’m Free” (from UK version of “Out of Our Heads“) 2:23
9. As Tears Go By” (single) Jagger/Richards/Andrew Loog Oldham 2:45
10. “Gotta Get Away” (from UK version of “Out of Our Heads“) 2:06
11. Blue Turns to Grey 2:30
12. I’m Moving On” (from UK release “Got Live If You Want It! EP“) (Live) Hank Snow 2:13

Personnel[edit]

The Rolling Stones
Additional personnel

Chart positions[edit]

Album
Year Chart Position
1966 Billboard 200[4] 4
Singles
Year Single Chart Position
1965 “Get Off of My Cloud” Billboard Hot 100[4] 1
1966 “As Tears Go By” Billboard Hot 100[4] 6

Certifications[edit]

Country Provider Certification
(sales thresholds)
United States RIAA Gold

References[edit]

Related posts:

Rolling Stones Jumping Jack Flash

__________ __ The Rolling Stones ~ Jumpin’ Jack Flash. (1968) The Dirty Mac Band (John Lennon, Eric Clapton, Keith Richards & Mitch Mitchell) | FeelNumb.com John Lennon, Eric Clapton, Keith Richards, Mitch Mitchell, Jimi Hendrix     ____

“Music Monday” Katy Perry and the Rolling Stones

News/ Katy Perry Sings With Mick Jagger at Rolling Stones Concert—Watch Now by Rebecca Macatee Today 5:45 AM PDT The Rolling Stones & Katy Perry – Beast Of Burden – Live – By Request Published on May 12, 2013 The Rolling Stones and special guest Katy Perry perform ‘Beast Of Burden’ at the Las Vegas […]

Katy Perry performs song “Beast of Burden” with Rolling Stones

News/ Katy Perry Sings With Mick Jagger at Rolling Stones Concert—Watch Now by Rebecca Macatee Today 5:45 AM PDT The Rolling Stones & Katy Perry – Beast Of Burden – Live – By Request Published on May 12, 2013 The Rolling Stones and special guest Katy Perry perform ‘Beast Of Burden’ at the Las Vegas […]

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Part 98 Michael Mann, UCLA Anthropologist, “My mother was a very loving, warm person who I remember her getting extremely unhappy when I told her at the age of 13 I was an atheist but she was the core of the family”

MUSIC MONDAY Eric Clapton and Jimi Hendrix were good friends!!

Jimi Hendrix & Cream – Sunshine Of Your Love Jimi Hendrix & Eric Clapton Jimi Hendrix & Mick Jagger Jimi Hendrix & Keith Richards Jimi Hendrix & Brian Jones Jimi Hendrix & Janis Joplin Jimi Hendrix with Cream & Pink Floyd Even “Legends” want to meet a “Legend” Jimi Hendrix: ‘You never told me he […]

Eric Clapton and Jimi Hendrix were good friends!!

Eric Clapton and Jimi Hendrix were good friends!! Jimi Hendrix & Cream – Sunshine Of Your Love Uploaded on Feb 5, 2012 Hey Joe JIMI HENDRIX live images in 1969, in London! BBC! dedicated to cream”Sunshine of Your Love”. High quality and superior sound. ¡¡¡¡¡full screen!!!!! Everyone wanted to meet or take a picture with […]

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Michael Mann, UCLA Anthropologist, “My mother was a very loving, warm person who I remember her getting extremely unhappy when I told her at the age of 13 I was an atheist but she was the core of the family”

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Michael Mann, UCLA Anthropologist, “My mother was a very loving, warm person who I remember her getting extremely unhappy when I told her at the age of 13 I was an atheist but she was the core of the family”

Open letter to George F. Will concerning Donald Trump!!!

The following was emailed to George F. Will on 6-27-16: Scott Ableman / Wikimedia Dear Mr. Will, I really enjoyed your You Tube cllip “George Will Keynotes 2010 Milton Friedman Prize Dinner:” If you google ARKANSAS MILTON FRIEDMAN you will be brought to my website http://www.thedailyhatch.org since I have written so many posts on my economic hero […]

MUSIC MONDAY Christian Rock Pioneer Larry Norman’s Songs Part 14

Christian Rock Pioneer Larry Norman’s Songs Part 14 I posted a lot in the past about my favorite Christian musicians such as Keith Green (I enjoyed reading Green’s monthly publications too), and 2nd Chapter of Acts and others. Today I wanted to talk about one of Larry Norman’s songs. David Rogers introduced me to Larry […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 107 A look at the BEATLES as featured in 7th episode of Francis Schaeffer film HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? Was popularity of OCCULTISM in UK the reason Aleister Crowley appeared on SGT PEP cover? Schaeffer notes, “People put the Occult in the area of non-reason in the hope of some kind of meaning even if it is a horrendous kind of meaning” Part E (Artist featured today is Gerald Laing )

On the cover of Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band Album there were many individuals that were historical figures that changed history. Many of these individuals had died before the release June 1, 1967 of the album. Aldous Huxley was a major figure in the drug culture and he had died on November 22, 1963. Aleister […]

First Look at Woody Allen’s Next Movie ‘Wonder Wheel’ Posted on Tuesday, February 21st, 2017 by Jack Giroux

__

Woody Allen's next movie

Another period piece is coming our way from writer-director Woody Allen. We know little about his latest movie, titled Wonder Wheel, which is typical of Allen’s movies. Rarely are character and plot details shared early on. But we do know his latest film stars Justin Timberlake, Kate Winslet, and Juno Temple and it takes place in the 1950s.

Below, check out the first photo from Woody Allen’s next movie.

Wonder Wheel is the famous Ferris wheel found in Coney Island. Allen spent three weeks there shooting last summer, making it his first time shooting there since Annie Hall. The Wonder Wheel does appear in that film. Allen’s story follows characters working on and around the boardwalk.

Allen’s latest co-stars Jim Belushi (According to Jim), Max Casella (Blue Valentine), and Steve Schirripa (The Sopranos). According to The Coney Island blog, Winslet plays a character “targeted by” by Tony Sirico‘s (The Sopranos) character. She ends up falling for Timberlake’s lifeguard.

Here’s a photo from Wonder Wheel (via Woody Allen Pages):

Allen spent a good amount of time shooting the boardwalk and the city last summer. He joked with Page Six a little about recreating the period and locations:

This movie’s set in the ’50s, and we’re re-creating the Parachute Jump. Even sunny beaches. It’s no longer my job to have to run around and find that anymore. Today we live in the future. While I’m home, some nerd wearing glasses in an office with a computer turns dials and creates sunny beaches. Justin Timberlake, Jim Belushi, Juno Temple are in this. We’re filming in The Bronx and all over the city.

Allen’s 47th film is expected to come out this year. Over the past couple of years, his movies are often released during the summertime. Amazon released his last picture, the disappointing Cafe Society, last July. The distributor has a good relationship with Allen, after releasing his last Hollywood-set comedy and making his seriesCrisis in Six Scenes. According to THR, they spent $25 million to finance Wonder Wheel. Allen’s movies had a home at Sony Pictures Classics the last few years, but he apparently has struck up a fruitful partnership with Amazon.

While Allen’s movies have been more hit or miss the past decade or so, when he makes a hit, it’s usually quite special. When he misses, at least there’s still a few laughs. Let’s hope Wonder Wheel is another hit from the filmmaker.

 

Related posts:

WOODY WEDNESDAY Settling into a hotel bar in Soho after a long day shooting a film for Woody Allen in the Bronx, Justin Timberlake wastes no time ordering the first of several Vesper martinis. “I was terrified all day today, dude,”

___________ Justin Timberlake Talks ‘Trolls,’ Family Life and His New Album With Pharrell Williams Andrew Barker Senior Features Writer@barkerrant TOM MUNRO FOR VARIETY NOVEMBER 1, 2016 | 10:00AM PT Settling into a hotel bar in Soho after a long day shooting a film for Woody Allen in the Bronx, Justin Timberlake wastes no time ordering […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY Woody Allen’s 81st Birthday

_ Woody Allen – standup – ’65 – RARE! Happy 81st Birthday, Woody Allen December 2, 2016 1 Comment Woody Allen turns 81 today. And he shows no signs of slowing down. Allen spent his 80th year being remarkably prolific, even by his own standards. The end of 2015 saw that year’s film, Irrational Man, […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY Everything We Know About Woody Allen’s 2017 Film With Kate Winslet And Justin Timberlake October 16, 2016

  _ Everything We Know About Woody Allen’s 2017 Film With Kate Winslet And Justin Timberlake October 16, 2016 3 Comments Woody Allen has, it seems, wrapped production on his 2017 Film. The new film stars Kate Winlset and Justin Timberlake. And despite some very public days of shooting, We still don’t know that much […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY At 79, Woody Allen Says There’s Still Time To Do His Best Work JULY 29, 2015 5:03 PM ET

_____________ Woody Allen – The Atheist At 79, Woody Allen Says There’s Still Time To Do His Best Work JULY 29, 2015 5:03 PM ET When asked about his major shortcomings, filmmaker Woody Allen says, “I’m lazy and an imperfectionist.” Thibault Camus/AP Woody Allen is a prolific filmmaker — he’s been releasing films pretty much […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY Midnight in Paris: TAP’s Movie of the Month for June 2015 JUNE 1, 2015 by TAP Adventures

Midnight in Paris: TAP’s Movie of the Month for June 2015 JUNE 1, 2015 by TAP Adventures Each month in TAP, we select a Movie of the Month to help prepare our students for their overseas trip. This month we’re starting to prepare for our 2016 adventure in France and the Benelux countries, so we’ve selected […]

“Woody Wednesday” An Interview with Woody Allen Woody Allen’s World: Whatever Works Robert E. Lauder April 15, 2010 – 2:31pm

This interview   below reveals Woody Allen’s nihilistic views and reminds me of his best movie which is  CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS!!!! Crimes and Misdemeanors 1989 Woody Allen Woody Allen Crimes and Misdemeanors Nihilism Nietzsche’s Death of God An Interview with Woody Allen Woody Allen’s World: Whatever Works Robert E. Lauder April 15, 2010 – 2:31pm Woody […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY Woody’s Cold Comforts Robert E. Lauder April 19, 2010

Top 10 Woody Allen Movies   Woody’s Cold Comforts Robert E. LauderApril 19, 2010 – 1:36pm Friends have often asked me about my interest in the films of Woody Allen: Why is a Catholic priest such an ardent admirer of the work of an avowed atheist, an artist who time and again has insisted on […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY New bio reassesses Woody Allen at 80 James Endrst , Special for USA TODAY2:03 p.m. EST November 7, 2015

Woody Allen & Parker Posey Red-Carpet Interviews for ‘Irrational Man’ New bio reassesses Woody Allen at 80 James Endrst , Special for USA TODAY2:03 p.m. EST November 7, 2015 Woody: The Biography by  David Evanier  (St. Martin’s Press) in Biography Buy Now USA TODAY Rating Woody Allen turns 80 on Dec. 1 and David Evanier has […]

WOODY WEDNESDAY A Handy Guide to All the Philosophers Referenced in Irrational Man by Eliza Berman July 17, 2015

___ Existentialism and the Meaningful Life [The Common Room] Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR A Handy Guide to All the Philosophers Referenced in Irrational Man Eliza Berman @lizabeaner July 17, 2015 David Livingston–Getty ImagesJoaquin Phoenix and Emma Stone attend the premiere of “Irrational Man” in Los Angeles on July 9, 2015. Leave it […]

Woody Wednesday All 47 Woody Allen movies – ranked from worst to best Part H

Woody Wednesday All 47 Woody Allen movies – ranked from worst to best (L-R): Annie Hall, Sleeper and To Rome With Love Robbie Collin, Film Critic Tim Robey, Film Critic 12 October 2016 • 2:55pm Annie Hall or Bananas? Blue Jasmine or Sleeper? Our critics Robbie Collin and Tim Robey rank all 47 Woody Allen movies […]