Sept. 8, 2019  “AVERAGE AMERICANS, IN 1913, WOULD HAVE MUCH PREFERRED a considerably higher tax rate on wealthy incomes. Most Americans, by that year, had become acutely aware of the inequality all around them. Great strikes in the urban centers of the East had dramatized the massive gap between capital and labor — and blue-ribbon committees and commissions had documented that gap. In 1912, for instance, the House Banking Committee, chaired by Arsene Pujo from Louisiana, revealed that just two financial groupings, the Morgan and Rockefeller empires, controlled a tenth of the nation’s wealth. America, the Pujo Committee charged, faced “a vast and growing concentration of control of money and credit in the hands of comparatively few men.’”  from  Greed and Good: Understanding and Overcoming the Inequality that Limits our Lives , by Sam Pizzigati (p. 432)  “Between drawing out and showing—an asymptotic contact—there is something to discover. To show, to make something seen, to designate— designare —is also what accompanies the demonstration through which a conclusion or lesson is drawn. One draws—one traces or extracts—in order to show. One shows by extending or spreading out in front of oneself. Better, in order to show something well, in order to render it fully manifest, one must not cease drawing (if only to draw attention), and in order to draw out (trace or pull), one must not lose sight of the invisible extremity of the mark [ trait ], the point by which the line advances and loses itself beyond itself in its own desire.  The gesture of showing by extending—extending in order to show or bring to light, extracting the lineament and incision of a form, contour, sense, or idea from the shadow or a compact mass—such is the gesture of  existing .”  from  The Pleasure in Drawing , by Jean-Luc Nancy (p. xii)  Red Clover /  Trifolium pratense
 Sept. 14, 2019  “ON APRIL 27, 1942, only months after Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt presented to Congress a proposal to limit the income of any one American. At a time of ‘grave national danger,’ the President advised, ‘no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year.’ The nation’s “discrepancies between low personal incomes and very high personal incomes,’ FDR urged, ‘should be lessened.’  Not all Americans would agree. The New York Herald Tribune quickly labeled FDR’s $25,000 limit — about $300,000 in current dollars — ‘a blatant piece of demagoguery.’ Many wealthy Americans, adds historian Kenneth Davis, felt ‘angry outrage.’ But few newspapers across the country would, in the end, echo the Herald Tribune’s fury, and wealthy Americans, by and large, would keep their outrage ‘prudently muted.’ Hardly any average Americans, the wealthy realized, shared their anger. The President, most Americans believed, was merely stating what needed to be said. At a time of national crisis, the rich needed to pay more in taxes, a great deal more. No one in their right mind, most Americans agreed, could possibly object to that notion.  Sixty years later, another American President, George W. Bush, would object to that notion. Amid a new national crisis, a war against terror, this President would insist that America’s wealthiest citizens should pay not more in taxes, but less, a great deal less.”  from  Greed and Good: Understanding and Overcoming the Inequality that Limits our Lives , by Sam Pizzigati (p. 415)  “A sketch ( Entwurf ), Heidegger says, a term for which one retains above all the meaning of  jet  ( werfen —“throwing, casting”), of projection toward what continues to come [ le non-advenu ], leaving in shadow the value of the mark, the tracing out, the form in the process of forming itself.  To exist is to sketch oneself [ s’esquisser ]. One would like to write  s’exquisser —to open oneself to a form which shows itself in the movement of its uprising [ surgissement ]. No one would consent to live if they did not experience this desire—to open oneself to the desire of (letting oneself) being drawn to the outside.”  from  The Pleasure in Drawing , by Jean-Luc Nancy (p. xii)  Sweet Autumn Clematis /  Clematis terniflora
 WE CANNOT, CONCLUDES HERMAN DALY, “grow” forever. Current human economic activity is already preempting one-fourth of what scientists call “the global net primary product of photosynthesis.”50 This economic activity cannot possibly be multiplied five- to ten-fold without forcing a fundamental environmental breakdown. The economics of “more” simply cannot deliver an American standard of living to everyone on Earth. For everyone’s sake, Daly and other ecological economists contend, we need to reject “growth” as our be all and end-all.  But if we were to say no to “more,” wouldn’t we be consigning the world’s poor to perpetual second-class status? And if we tried to narrow global lifestyle differentials, in a world that wasn’t producing great amounts of more, wouldn’t average people in rich nations have to be content with less? To improve the lives of the poor, in a no-growth world, wouldn’t we, in effect, have to degrade the lives of everybody else? Are we faced, in the final analysis, with a choice we don’t want to make? Must we either brutalize people to protect the Earth or brutalize the Earth to protect people?  In fact, argues Herman Daly, we do not face this choice. We do not face a choice between more and less. We face the choice, as a world, between more and better, between economic  growth  and economic  development.   These two notions, growth and development, often get confused, a confusion that may stem from how we think about growth in our everyday lives. We speak, for instance, about children growing. Children who grow, we all understand, are becoming larger in size. But we also talk about adults growing. We might say, for instance, that a newly elected office-holder has “grown” in office. We don’t mean, of course, that this elected official has become larger in size. We mean simply that this official has matured — developed — as a person. Herman Daly draws this same contrast between economies. An economy that “grows” gets larger. An economy that “develops” gets better.   from  Greed and Good: Understanding and Overcoming the Inequality that Limits our Lives , by Sam Pizzigati    Drawing is the opening of form. This can be thought in two ways: opening in the sense of a beginning, departure, origin, dispatch, impetus, or sketching out, and opening in the sense of an availability or inherent capability. According to the first sense, drawing evokes more the gesture of drawing than the traced figure. According to the second, it indicates the figure’s essential incompleteness, a non-closure or non-totalizing of form.  …   Drawing  participates in a semantic field where act and force [ puissance ] are combined, or where the sense of the act, the state, or the being that is in question cannot be detached entirely from a sense of gesture, movement, or becoming. The word  drawing  draws itself along or draws itself forward before all disposed form, all tracing out [ trace ], as if initiating a trace that must always be discovered again–opened up, opened out, initiatied, incised.  In the idea of  drawing , the word itself can also designate an essential suspension of an achieved reality. “Here is a drawing by Rembrandt” only gives us the impoverished factual and informational meaning of the word, whereas the expression “Rembrandt’s drawing” reveals a quite different value. For  Rembrandt’s drawing  is Rembrandt’s own manner of drawing. It is a collection of characteristics that distinguish his drawing. Furthermore, it is also the role that drawing plays in his work, the way drawing plays out within the work, either within the paintings or as a separate exercise, whether in sketches, studies, or engravings.  from  The Pleasure in Drawing , by Jean-Luc Nancy (p. 1-2)
prev / next