Hoffer (H after this): “June 10
Didn’t do a thing. Took Lili and the child to lunch and then to the Indian exhibition at the Palace of the Legion of Honor.
I was roused by an article in the latest Nation. It was written by a fellow named Halevy who is obviously an American writer living in Mexico. He has recently paid a visit to the U.S., and his article deals with Disneyland and Las Vegas. My impression is as follows: The man is some sort of radical, and is extremely money-conscious. He is contemptuous of people who throw away their money. Chances are he made some money in real estate, and went to Mexico, where living is cheap, to write. His contempt for America is standard. In one sentence he says we worship the almighty buck, and in the next sentence he grinds his teeth at the levity and stupidity with which we throw away our money. He resolves the paradox by saying that our wasting is a way of punishing our idols.”
My response: Americans work hard and play hard, and are generous and produce wealth so if they have some fun with what they have earned why not. This writer needs to butt out and leave the masses to run their own lives as they see fit.
H: “The article tells little about this country but a lot about the writer. I am often struck by the money-consciousness of many radicals, and their skill in business, particularly in real estate. The radicals on the waterfront have left-wing principles and right-wing bank accounts.”
My response: It seems to me that they are not anti-wealth so much as they are jealous of the masses for having wealth, and living high: the radicals, intellectuals and other elites should have money and live high but the masses rise above their place when they have wealth and enjoy it. What fraudulent, misanthropic hypocrities.
H: “June 11
Eight hours on the sorting pile at Pier 29. As hard a day as I have had in a long time. The company has finally figured out how to keep people going without a pause. No sooner is one row of loads started than another row is all lined up waiting for you. I run up a sweat all day long partly because of the heat and partly because of the rushing.
The Manchester Guardian Weekly is suggesting De Gaulle, if not a fool, is a weak sister. Some letter writer sees De Gaulle as Hindenburg who unknowingly prepares the ground for a Hitler. My feeling is that whatever authoritarian regime may arise in France it will be tempered by rationality and good sense.
June 12
The whole morning I fought the impulse to meet Little Eric as he comes out of the nursery school. My attachment to the boy is being reinforced by a sense of loneliness. Men feel lonely when they do not do the one thing they ought to do. It is only when we fully exercise our capacities—when we grow—that we have roots in the world and feel at home in it.”
My response: What Hoffer writes above is true not just of men but all humans more ore less. Individuating is the one thing we should be doing, in our unique way with one of our special interests serving to express our creative talent—that is when we feel at home in the world and not strangers in it, neither estranged from God the Ultimate Creator and Individuator, nor refusing to live as God had destined us to fulfill.
H: “I have been reading a couple of articles on Russian science (one in the Nation and the other in Commentary). They confirmed my suspicion that freedom is not indispensable for cultural creativeness. A despotism that respects and subsidizes science, literature, and art can be a good milieu for creativeness in those fields.”
My response: That may be so, but I still maintain that all the people are lumpy with gifts, talents and ability, and the most optimum milieu form them to wax great as creators is in a free society.
H: “9 P.M. Just returned from seeing a French picture—a crime story, The Girl on the Third Floor. It was a civilized picture. The criminals seemed humane, and everyone is rational. Not too exciting, but it kept me fully interested for 1 ½ hours.
June 13
Seven hours on the Norwegian ship Hoegh Silverstream. Rubber wrapped in burlap or paper. Partner one of the laziest men on the waterfront, yet he worked well and was pleasant. He is, however, a total, pathological liar, hence conversation with him is meaningless. For a moment it seemed to me that only conversation about ideas can be honest. Most other talk is nine-tenths make-believe.”
My response: Hoffer is likely correct that intellectual conversation is the most interesting, meaningful, honest and true. The fluffy conversation is more meaningless, more fruitless, dishonest and a waste of breath.
H: “At noon I heard a Sicilian proverb: “The tongue has not bones but it can break bones.”
In the afternoon a young clerk came over to talk with me. He is a graduate of the University of San Francisco, fairly intelligent, pious and superficial. I talked a lot and it did me good. Yesterday I spent twenty-four hours without talking to anyone, so I needed talking.”
My response: It seems likely that the longshoreman knew that Hoffer was famous as a writer and thinker, so they did not seem especially bothered by that fact and his presence, though intellectuals like that young clerk would occasionally seek Hoffer out.
June 14
Pier 26, British ship. Discharging meat and apples from New Zealand. The apples, Rome Beauties, are as fine as any I have seen.
The British crew on the ship make an excellent impression. Compared with average-run Americans, these British sailors have a freshness about them and an individual distinctness. These people have not spent their lives running, and they have not been run over by life. One wonders whether American could continue to exist when we stop running. There is a streak of extremism us: we either run or do not move at all. To stop running might edge most of toward inertness and stagnation.
My response: Hoffer could well be right that there is extremism built into the American way of life.
H: June 15
Danish ship at Pier 31. More meat from New Zealand. I have been feeling quite well the last couple of days—light of heart and alert.
Diehl’s book on Byzantium is pleasant and sometimes stimulating. Here and there Byzantium reminded me of today’s America. He quotes a sixth-century writer about the popular preoccupation with chariot races in the Hippodrome which inflamed men’s souls to inordinate heights of passion: ‘Should the green charioteer take the lead, someone are in despair; should the blur overtake him half the city is in mourning. People with no personal interest in the matter utter frantic imprecations; those who have suffered nothing feel grievously wounded.’ He adds, ‘The most serious men declared that without theatre and Hippodrome life would have virtually joyless.’ The Emperor himself took sides in the contest as passionately as anyone.
I have always wondered whether it is vital for a society that all its members should have some common subjects which they all are equally interested in and in which they all have some expertise.”
My response: To the sentence above, I assent enthusiastically—it could be that some common subjects of universal following and interest among all members of the community serves as something like a metaphysical or social glue or metanarrative, holding to people together as a people.
H: “In Byzantium the common subjects were theology and chariot races. In this country they are machines and sports.
On the way home, in the bus, it struck me that Little Eric is the only human being I have grown onto—that the relation between us is that of a graft. Many elements went into the making of this graft, not the least of which is that he is my namesake. The fact is also important that he is still to me, after 2 ½ years, a new human being. Now and then I feel like asking him how he likes this country.
June 16
In this morning’s Chronicle Tito is quoted as saying of the Chinese Communists that in attacking Jugoslavia they are using ‘such insulting language that even Marx and Lenin, if they could hear it, would turn over in their graves.’ Unintentionally, Tito is here pointing at Marx and Lenin as paragons of rudeness. Good manners are inconceivable without a degree of objectivity, and the give and take of compromise.”
My response: I do not think anyone would deny that anyone would deny that Hoffer was a man he thought, wrote and lived paradoxes, or that he was a cultural and political moderate, but that is strongly reinforced by the sentence above where he writes that good manners are inconceivable without a degree of objectivity, and the give and take of compromise.
The fanatics, revolutionaries and ideologues who hate America and seek for it to be destroyed and overthrown, are often loud, angry, rude even violent people, and they mean what they say, and will be much worse, more violent, intolerant and vicious, once they hold the reins of power.
H: “He who clings with all his might to an absolute truth fears compromise more than the devil. He throttles the soft amenities which would dovetail him with others, and blur his uncompromising stance. Thus it happens when a faith loses it potency rudeness often serves as a substitute.
June 17
To Stockton with Lili and the boy. The child is utterly charming and obnoxious by turns. It was a good day and a long one. We started at seven in the morning and came back at seven-thirty in the evening. Lili is herself again, which means that she is genuine, and incredibly forbearing. The boy was hard to handle—he spites or humors me as the spirit moves him. On the way back Lili turned, on the spur of the moment, into a road which goes to the top of Mount Diablo. My fear was that we had not gas enough. I shall remember vividly the drive up because of my unceasing alarm until we returned to the main highway.
I spent about $25, and they were well spent. It was the first time in months that I have gotten out of the city. The country, though scorched by summer, was pleasing to the eye. The yellows were satin, and the greens of a metallic quality and a dozen shades.”
No comments:
Post a Comment