John- This is both entertaining and enlightening at the same time. I particularly love the bio-natural and the warfare stronghold analogies (and graphics). So stunning to have them put together in such a precise way.
Thank you for reading, and I appreciate your writing. Downeast Maine is a beautiful place for kayaking and this was a well-written scene: https://substack.com/home/post/p-164727538
Thank you for the comment. To put it bluntly: this isn't true history. Jefferson and Hamilton used other names and catspaws fairly famously, including for the Federalist Papers themselves. Friedman and Keynes were reputedly quite the schemers in their rivalries.
I am sympathetic to calls for greater courage and bluntness, but your comment begins with nonsense, historically speaking, and to meet you in the spirit of blunt courage I'm going to say so directly.
That said, I agree the courage problem is fundamental. I also agree language alone won't solve the courage problem, and I don't intend to solve the courage problem with language. This essay wasn't aimed at solving the courage problem itself, but not because the problem isn't important, rather because an essay is language and courage is better forged in experience. I create experiences for people to teach courage rather than writing essays about it. I do also write about creating those experiences, but not here, not yet.
If you are interested in understanding where I'm really coming from here, I'll recommend two modern-classic books about exactly how modern norms for and against honesty and forthrightness arose: first, A Social History of Truth, by Steven Shapin, which has a great account of how dueling norms (courage to death) were important for gentlemanly honesty in 17th C England; second, The Civilizing Process, by Norbert Elias, which describes the development of courtly speech and manners from the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment. It's a worthy topic, and the real history is worth learning. Or for a different kind of read on courage, more practical "how to be courageous," I often recommend Leadership and Training for the Fight by Paul Howe and Extreme Ownership by Jocko WIllink. A more idiosyncratic and sentimental favorite of mine is Courage Goes to Work by Bill Treasurer, who used to consult for the NSF on helping scientists like I was become more courageous (I personally took that courage and walked out the door).
Thank you for the correction, and more importantly, for the respectful reply. You’re right about the pseudonyms and the historical nuance. I can definitely do better.
I also respect the work you’re doing offline to build courage where it matters. I see your point about the essay.
Thanks again for the conversation, and the reading recs. I’ll take a look.
Thank you for taking the correction graciously, and I look forward to making time to check out your primary writing soon. I appreciate your spirit, here!
John- This is both entertaining and enlightening at the same time. I particularly love the bio-natural and the warfare stronghold analogies (and graphics). So stunning to have them put together in such a precise way.
Thank you for appreciating this work, Thalia, and I'm glad to learn of your niche here — looks like a lot of great writing on nature and story.
Let's by all means each contribute to fields and hedges, and avoid stampedes...
Have conversations and not battlefields.
Thank you for reading, and I appreciate your writing. Downeast Maine is a beautiful place for kayaking and this was a well-written scene: https://substack.com/home/post/p-164727538
We used to argue in public. Jefferson. Hamilton. Keynes. Friedman. They didn’t need a metaphor. They just said what they thought.
Now we hide, use fake names, or measure our words. We don’t want to lose jobs, friends, or status.
I don’t think we need smarter metaphors. We need more people to speak clearly, take the hit, and stop retreating.
You can’t solve a courage problem with language.
Thank you for the comment. To put it bluntly: this isn't true history. Jefferson and Hamilton used other names and catspaws fairly famously, including for the Federalist Papers themselves. Friedman and Keynes were reputedly quite the schemers in their rivalries.
Please take a look at this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pseudonyms_used_in_the_American_Constitutional_debates
Please consider the title of Cato's Letters.
I am sympathetic to calls for greater courage and bluntness, but your comment begins with nonsense, historically speaking, and to meet you in the spirit of blunt courage I'm going to say so directly.
That said, I agree the courage problem is fundamental. I also agree language alone won't solve the courage problem, and I don't intend to solve the courage problem with language. This essay wasn't aimed at solving the courage problem itself, but not because the problem isn't important, rather because an essay is language and courage is better forged in experience. I create experiences for people to teach courage rather than writing essays about it. I do also write about creating those experiences, but not here, not yet.
If you are interested in understanding where I'm really coming from here, I'll recommend two modern-classic books about exactly how modern norms for and against honesty and forthrightness arose: first, A Social History of Truth, by Steven Shapin, which has a great account of how dueling norms (courage to death) were important for gentlemanly honesty in 17th C England; second, The Civilizing Process, by Norbert Elias, which describes the development of courtly speech and manners from the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment. It's a worthy topic, and the real history is worth learning. Or for a different kind of read on courage, more practical "how to be courageous," I often recommend Leadership and Training for the Fight by Paul Howe and Extreme Ownership by Jocko WIllink. A more idiosyncratic and sentimental favorite of mine is Courage Goes to Work by Bill Treasurer, who used to consult for the NSF on helping scientists like I was become more courageous (I personally took that courage and walked out the door).
Thank you for the correction, and more importantly, for the respectful reply. You’re right about the pseudonyms and the historical nuance. I can definitely do better.
I also respect the work you’re doing offline to build courage where it matters. I see your point about the essay.
Thanks again for the conversation, and the reading recs. I’ll take a look.
Thank you for taking the correction graciously, and I look forward to making time to check out your primary writing soon. I appreciate your spirit, here!