GENIUS FORUMS

I have just reread this short story and I was struck by its resonance with much of the assessments of Woman at GF. I was wondering if anybody else here has read it and was curious to see some reactions.

What strikes you as the main points of similarity?

I haven't read it, but if your reply is interesting, I might consider putting it into the Reasoner's Library.

Do you have an electronic copy?


...

I'm afraid I have not been able to find an attachable copy.

If I related too much of the story, it might affect your take on it before you read it, and it is the GF reader's take I am interested in hearing.

Briefly, it centers around an English couple who rents space in a large house in Florence. A poor peasant family lives in one of the mansion's rooms. The young son in the peasant family, Guido, befriends the son of the English couple. Guido presently displays an interest in the music he hears from the English couple's gramophone. The narrator (the Englishman) quickly sees the boy is musically gifted.

But the middle-aged landlady, who also resides in the large house, notices young Guido's gift, too. She envisions adopting the boy from the peasant tenant and educating him, thereby gaining fame for herself in the process.

The narrator, however, soon realizes that Guido's real talent is in mathematics (hence, "young Archimedes") and that the musical acuity is just that capacity many gifted mathematicians seem to share.

What then happens is the crux of the tale.

Link to Young Archimedes online.



(JPEGs in one PDF file).


...

Sorry about the blank bits on the first page.


...

Kelly - thanks for this! Where did you find it?
BTW - I knew in the "Study too much" thread you weren't really saying one should ignore formal training. It just sounded that way. I am quite sure you are not a blockhead.

It was a library book.

...

Kelly Jones wrote:It was a library book.

...

So? Did you read it? If you do, please let's think out loud.

I'll share my thoughts in a couple of days, once I'm back at my own computer.


...

Got back home this afternoon. I went for a long bicycle ride.

As promised, my thoughts about the story...It's basically about the clash between thinking and unthinking.

The unthinking type is unable to see beyond the sensory, materialistic, outward-based world. For them, the thinker doesn't even exist. They interpret his stonelike social inertness as either rude indifference, or a kind of intellectual "terra nullius", such as an impersonal calculating-machine to be fed problems.

Huxley was quite skillful in relating the little child and the grown woman.

However, I don't think Huxley was a misogynist, meaning, someone who understood feminine psychology deeply, and, understanding, necessarily rejected it. Many of his stories show enchantment with an ideal, ethereal, otherworldly female redeemer. "Island" shows clearly his two recurrent female characters: the mindless, selfish prostitute, and the childlike, magician-nurse. In "Young Archimedes", the narrator's wife is somewhat like the magician-nurse: his "soulmate".

I'm not convinced by the ending. I think a more realistic ending would be, he would run away. He did teach himself to read, after all. But Huxley seemed to like tragedies, and misty, poetic touches.


...

I was struck by his ability to encapsulate the way women can spend their energy and time:

in interfering with other people's affairs, in working up emotional scenes, in thinking about love and making it, and in bothering men till they cannot get on with their work.

yet not blanketly apply it to all women all the time. For instance, you pointed out that the narrator is married to what seems to be a soul mate.

I agree that he is not a misogynist. But you define a misogynist as

someone who understood feminine psychology deeply, and, understanding, necessarily rejected it.

He seems to be able to take individual cases, rather than inductively characterizing entire sets of people.

This is why this short story interested me vis a vis GF. Huxley is able (somewhat melodramatically) to show the vacuous, ego-driven psychology of many women and the negative effects on others it has, yet not permit that knowledge itself to change himself such that he is not able to interact with women who do not "interfere with men's work."

cousinbasil wrote:I have just reread this short story and I was struck by its resonance with much of the assessments of Woman at GF.

Have you not yet figured out that discussion on the feminine on this forum is about character of consciousness, not gender? Or are you going to stubbornly ignore this point and continue harping on inanely about what you are percieving as misogyny?

Biological males can (and often do) have a highly feminine consciousness. They are to all intent and purpose, women. It is this in part which is railed against here.

Try paying a bit more attention...

prince wrote:

cousinbasil wrote:I have just reread this short story and I was struck by its resonance with much of the assessments of Woman at GF.

Have you not yet figured out that discussion on the feminine on this forum is about character of consciousness, not gender? Or are you going to stubbornly ignore this point and continue harping on inanely about what you are perceiving as misogyny?

Biological males can (and often do) have a highly feminine consciousness. They are to all intent and purpose, women. It is this in part which is railed against here.

Try paying a bit more attention...

Prince , try understanding posts before you comment on them. Here, you are clearly commenting on what you perceive to be my (mistaken) view of what GF is about, and not about what I have actually said, which I presume is not beyond your capacity to grasp. Notice, for example, that it was Kelly that brought up misogyny and implicitly defined it for purposes of discussion.

Have you not yet figured out that discussion on the feminine on this forum is about character of consciousness, not gender?... Biological males can (and often do) have a highly feminine consciousness. They are to all intent and purpose, women.

The discussions on the feminine on this forum are about many aspects of the feminine. It is your business if you classify men who exhibit feminine characteristics in what you perceive to be their consciousness as rightfully belonging to one gender or the other.

For example, an effeminate homosexual male may exhibit many characteristics traditionally associated with feminine consciousness and yet not consider himself for all "intents and purposes" a woman.

But thank you for enlightening me on what you think are proper topics for discussion at GF.

Kelly wrote:Many of his stories show enchantment with an ideal, ethereal, otherworldly female redeemer. "Island" shows clearly his two recurrent female characters: the mindless, selfish prostitute, and the childlike, magician-nurse. In "Young Archimedes", the narrator's wife is somewhat like the magician-nurse: his "soulmate".

I haven't read Island. Yet I do plainly see the dichotomy he has set up in YA regarding female types. It is not quite a standard "madonna/whore" arrangement, which might describe what you see to be a common theme for him.

What I thought stood out here was not Huxley's characterization of the Signora as such, for then it would have been simply a character study. Rather, he rendered her typical.

I'm not convinced by the ending. I think a more realistic ending would be, he would run away.

Personally, this was my reaction as well. The alternate ending you propose here would have been at least as effective, I think.

What made me think of GF as I read YA is that it depicts a situation where a young mind first encounters what is clearly drawn opposing male and female influences. The male influence is able to identify Guido's talent for music, and understand that it is a manifestation of an even deeper latent ability to exercise mathematical thinking. The female influence sees that same musical ability and envisions it as a way to advance her own ambitions for herself.

Huxley goes out of his way to make sure the reader understands the antagonist is a female. Idle women are bothersome and prevent men from doing their work.

cousinbasil wrote:I was struck by his ability to encapsulate the way women can spend their energy and time:

in interfering with other people's affairs, in working up emotional scenes, in thinking about love and making it, and in bothering men till they cannot get on with their work.

yet not blanketly apply it to all women all the time. For instance, you pointed out that the narrator is married to what seems to be a soul mate.

Huxley didn't really understand the ego. It's not surprising. Few do.

I agree that he is not a misogynist. But you define a misogynist as "someone who understood feminine psychology deeply, and, understanding, necessarily rejected it." He seems to be able to take individual cases, rather than inductively characterizing entire sets of people.

Prince was correct that the primary concern here is consciousness. It is using consciousness that one can inductively characterize entire sets of people. But he wasn't quite on the money when he disassociated consciousness from gender. It is easy to observe that women are typically unconscious. This simply means that an exception does not fit the rule.

This is why this short story interested me vis a vis GF. Huxley is able (somewhat melodramatically) to show the vacuous, ego-driven psychology of many women and the negative effects on others it has, yet not permit that knowledge itself to change himself such that he is not able to interact with women who do not "interfere with men's work."

Huxley could see coarse forms of the feminine-mind. He recognised the hellishness of the prostitute, and female zealot. But he regarded them as hellish because they didn't make him happy and "bliss out". He didn't understand the other side of the coin. Namely, unhappiness creates happiness, and happiness creates unhappiness. He was still deeply attracted to the "butterfly woman" - the blissful, wafty, soothing, sweet, ego-reinforcing magician-nurse.

In Island, probably his most interesting work, he shows that he was deeply drawn to a childlike form of unconsciousness, as offered in drugs.

In other words, Huxley himself had a large component of feminine-mindedness in himself, and this is why his soulmate was a maternal figure. He wanted to escape consciousness and rationality, and return back to infancy, rather than grow up through consciousness and make all reason, as the wise man does.


...

cousinbasil to prince wrote:an effeminate homosexual male may exhibit many characteristics traditionally associated with feminine consciousness and yet not consider himself for all "intents and purposes" a woman.

It doesn't matter what an unconscious person regards herself or himself to be. It's only the conscious person who is capable of judging, not the unconscious.


...

cousinbasil wrote:Idle women are bothersome and prevent men from doing their work.

Interesting point. Idleness in a thinker is a necessity, but the unconscious hate idleness and feel compelled to be constantly organising others.


...

Kelly Jones wrote:

cousinbasil to prince wrote:an effeminate homosexual male may exhibit many characteristics traditionally associated with feminine consciousness and yet not consider himself for all "intents and purposes" a woman.

It doesn't matter what an unconscious person regards herself or himself to be. It's only the conscious person who is capable of judging, not the unconscious.


...

But this is an easy dodge. In the example I gave I see no hint that I was speaking about someone who was "unconscious" as you put it. I certainly do not agree that such an effeminate gay male is necessarily any less aware of anything.

Kelly wrote:In Island, probably his most interesting work, he shows that he was deeply drawn to a childlike form of unconsciousness, as offered in drugs.

In other words, Huxley himself had a large component of feminine-mindedness in himself, and this is why his soulmate was a maternal figure. He wanted to escape consciousness and rationality, and return back to infancy, rather than grow up through consciousness and make all reason, as the wise man does.

This is quite a characterization. You are painting with somewhat broad strokes a portrait of a man who was a rather complex intellectual figure.

Based on what you have said, we are to conclude that if Huxley had a large component of feminine-mindedness in himself, that he was largely unconscious, or at least unconscious to that extent. Yet he seems to have been an all around erudite person.

The desire to have a soul-mate may bespeak a part of oneself that desires to return to infancy. It seems very common in men in general. Why then consider it a feminine trait?

Honestly, despite what Prince suggests, I am not being obtuse. It just seems to me that we are being a bit too quick to identify the unconsciousness in people as something feminine. I think the world is virtually teeming with people entirely lacking in even the slightest feminine characteristics who are yet 99% unconscious.

You are certainly not the first indignant douchebag that has come storming in here, flinging out accusations of misogyny, and you won't be the last.

prince wrote:You are certainly not the first indignant douchebag that has come storming in here, flinging out accusations of misogyny, and you won't be the last.

How dare you speak to Kelly in that fashion!

Prince, you will note I have not labeled anyone as a misogynist and that it was Kelly who brought up the term. Methinks that thou dost protest too much.

Ya gotta feel sorry for Shakespeare sometimes :)

cousinbasil wrote:basil to prince: an effeminate homosexual male may exhibit many characteristics traditionally associated with feminine consciousness and yet not consider himself for all "intents and purposes" a woman.

Kelly: It doesn't matter what an unconscious person regards herself or himself to be. It's only the conscious person who is capable of judging, not the unconscious.

basil: But this is an easy dodge. In the example I gave I see no hint that I was speaking about someone who was "unconscious" as you put it. I certainly do not agree that such an effeminate gay male is necessarily any less aware of anything.

It wasn't a dodge in the slightest. If a conscious person - and by that I mean a fully conscious, delusion-free individual - judges another to show characteristics of feminine-mindedness, then it doesn't matter what that other person believes themselves to be. The principle is very much appropriate to your argument.

But to be clear on this, I don't believe that camp homosexual men are necessarily feminine-minded. Camping effeminate behaviour in homosexual men is decidedly mocking. That means they are pretending. They are performing a mocking display of femininity to attract the attention of a more masculine homosexual man, but they are not only playing on the usual submission-domination dynamics of courtship, but are insinuating that they are seeking to submit to only the more perspicacious and psychologically subtle masculine types. The campness is a deliberate message that he won't submit easily to just any old gay jock. It's a form of cynicism about Mr. Right.

But still, to the degree a person is unenlightened, they are not conscious of how their mind blocks out the truth. More in my second post in reply to your comments on Huxley, next.


...

cousinbasil wrote:Kelly: In Island, probably his most interesting work, he shows that he was deeply drawn to a childlike form of unconsciousness, as offered in drugs.

In other words, Huxley himself had a large component of feminine-mindedness in himself, and this is why his soulmate was a maternal figure. He wanted to escape consciousness and rationality, and return back to infancy, rather than grow up through consciousness and make all reason, as the wise man does.

basil: This is quite a characterization. You are painting with somewhat broad strokes a portrait of a man who was a rather complex intellectual figure.

Yes, but that is because I am much more complex than he is. I am coming from a particular perspective, namely, enlightenment, which shows the principles of the ego. That makes people very easy to understand, generally speaking. To me, Huxley is a simple person to understand. To me, most people - of far lesser capacities and intellectual scope than Huxley - are like insects. That's not a contemptuous or prideful statement. It's just how it is, and it is also not saying that insects aren't complex. I have a deep respect for the intricacies of causation, and insects also are intricate things.

Based on what you have said, we are to conclude that if Huxley had a large component of feminine-mindedness in himself, that he was largely unconscious, or at least unconscious to that extent. Yet he seems to have been an all around erudite person.

Comparatively, yes. But he wasn't wise. There is an infinite difference between ordinarily worldly erudition, and enlightenment.

That said, the average man is far closer to genius and wisdom, than the average woman. It's all relative.

The desire to have a soul-mate may bespeak a part of oneself that desires to return to infancy. It seems very common in men in general. Why then consider it a feminine trait?

Here is that precise relativity again. The average woman is far more unconscious than man, and the distance she travels in returning to infancy is much less than in men. Men are slightly more conscious than women. Not much, but even such a small amount is huge in terms of a potential for enlightenment.

Honestly, despite what Prince suggests, I am not being obtuse. It just seems to me that we are being a bit too quick to identify the unconsciousness in people as something feminine. I think the world is virtually teeming with people entirely lacking in even the slightest feminine characteristics who are yet 99% unconscious.

It looks as though you have yet to identify ultra-masculinity. That is, the relationship between the characteristics of the wise, and most men. When a person becomes wise, and familiar with those traits, then they will start seeing femininity in most people, in varying degrees.


...