DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Vanguard Boojum, v. 1, issue 1

Transcribe
Translate

Vanguard Boojum
page eleven

Fit the 2d       EN PASSANT    Lowndes

The Muse     (See page four: I check with Blish)

Agenbite of Inwit
     Despite some of the marginal functions of the fillers I've used in this magazine (which functions I've mentioned to some Vanguardifs) none of them have been fillers in the true sense of the word:  odd items plucked out of convenient pigeonholes to fill so-many lines. Each one was chosen with care for its relevancy to or fitting-in with some particular argument or discussion either presented in the same issue, or current in the mailings. I am not, therefore, much moved either by Blish's "Philosophy of the Filler" (for my appreciation of that essay per se) or by damon's "annoyance ... insult ... anger" at either seeing something with which he was familiar, or being prodded into thinking at a time when he'd rather not -- or at least not along those particular lines at the moment. I have used some bonafide fillers, but so far there have been no complaints upon them. Let offended members pluck them out and cast them from themselves, if they wish. (Of course, if the circulation of AOI starts tobaganning to such a point that it is operating at a loss, extreme measures might have to be taken.)
     The terminology used in "Outlines of a NO-Value Orientation" may be somewhat confusing, inasmuch as there is a considerable surface resemblance between what I term the "one-value orientation" and what Hayakawa calls the "two-value orientation" and my "no-value orientation" as opposed to Hayakawa's "multi-value orientation".
     Kayakawa defines the "two-value orientation" as a strictly "Black' and "White" or "Good" and "Evil" matter. Only the two extremes are recognized and all middle ground is excluded. Thus that which is not "White" must necessarily be "Black"; that which is not "Good" necessarily "Evil". Degrees of "blackness" or "whiteness"; "good" or "evil", or colors other than "black" and "white", or matters in themselves neither "Good" nor "Evil" does not exist.
     We know from experience that the practice of the believer in this two-value position is bent to categorizing all of which he is aware into one of the two extremes, praising without discrimination that which is "Good" and attacking with equal indiscrimination that which is "Evil". We know further that his basis of classification (even granting the possibility of such categorizing in a real world) is shaky and insecure. 
     I use the term "one-Value orientation" as a further distinction:  the holder of this tenet does not bother to attack "Black" or "Evil"; he simply refuses to consider its existence at all -- unless it is forced upon him. This, of course, is an extreme of extremes but I think that the holder of the "two-value" orientation inevitably tends to this final diminishment sheerly from the weight of having to live in an unreal world.
     The only essential difference I can see, however, between Hayakawa's "multi-value orientation" and my "no-Value orientation" is the avenue of approach. His comes through a process of addition, while I arrive at mine through a process of subtraction. Both are, in themselves, nothing more than fresh starting-points. However, the avenue of approach which led us both to the same position, though starting from opposite directions leads me to wonder about something which our Relativity Experts might take. When, and at what point, does zero become infinity?

Saving...

Vanguard Boojum page eleven Fit the 2d EN PASSANT Lowndes The Muse (See page four: I check with Blish) Agenbite of Inwit Despite some of the marginal functions of the fillers I've used in this magazine (which functions I've mentioned to some Vanguardifs) none of them have been fillers in the true sense of the word: odd items plucked out of convenient pigeonholes to fill so-many lines. Each one was chosen with care for its relevancy to or fitting-in with some particular argument or discussion either presented in the same issue, or current in the mailings. I am not, therefore, much moved either by Blish's "Philosophy of the Filler" (for my appreciation of that essay per se) or by damon's "annoyance ... insult ... anger" at either seeing something with which he was familiar, or being prodded into thinking at a time when he'd rather not -- or at least not along those particular lines at the moment. I have used some bonafide fillers, but so far there have been no complaints upon them. Let offended members pluck them out and cast them from themselves, if they wish. (Of course, if the circulation of AOI starts tobaganning to such a point that it is operating at a loss, extreme measures might have to be taken.) The terminology used in "Outlines of a NO-Value Orientation" may be somewhat confusing, inasmuch as there is a considerable surface resemblance between what I term the "one-value orientation" and what Hayakawa calls the "two-value orientation" and my "no-value orientation" as opposed to Hayakawa's "multi-value orientation". Kayakawa defines the "two-value orientation" as a strictly "Black' and "White" or "Good" and "Evil" matter. Only the two extremes are recognized and all middle ground is excluded. Thus that which is not "White" must necessarily be "Black"; that which is not "Good" necessarily "Evil". Degrees of "blackness" or "whiteness"; "good" or "evil", or colors other than "black" and "white", or matters in themselves neither "Good" nor "Evil" does not exist. We know from experience that the practice of the believer in this two-value position is bent to categorizing all of which he is aware into one of the two extremes, praising without discrimination that which is "Good" and attacking with equal indiscrimination that which is "Evil". We know further that his basis of classification (even granting the possibility of such categorizing in a real world) is shaky and insecure. I use the term "one-Value orientation" as a further distinction: the holder of this tenet does not bother to attack "Black" or "Evil"; he simply refuses to consider its existence at all -- unless it is forced upon him. This, of course, is an extreme of extremes but I think that the holder of the "two-value" orientation inevitably tends to this final diminishment sheerly from the weight of having to live in an unreal world. The only essential difference I can see, however, between Hayakawa's "multi-value orientation" and my "no-Value orientation" is the avenue of approach. His comes through a process of addition, while I arrive at mine through a process of subtraction. Both are, in themselves, nothing more than fresh starting-points. However, the avenue of approach which led us both to the same position, though starting from opposite directions leads me to wonder about something which our Relativity Experts might take. When, and at what point, does zero become infinity?