Spencer Heath Archive

Item 2507

Penned letter to Cecil (not identified; Tucker?) of March 17^th (unknown year)from “Pearl” (Pyrrha Gladys Grodman), Society for Long Island Georgists, 207-12 Jamaica Avenue, Bellaire, Long Island New York

March 17 (year unknown)

 

Dear Cecil,

 

It’s good news to know about the résumé — I approve whole-heartedly! And you are quite right about the inducement it offers.

 

 I am interested to hear of Reeve’s ideas — particularly of the parallels and where they diverge. I note that there were 200 pages of MS., but what about the books in printed form referred to in “Land and Freedom?” They, too, should be in the N.Y. Public Library.

 

 My copy of the MS — the 90-page version is now in the hands of Will Lisner. Prior to that, my friend, Mr. Kennedy — the politicking minister (Mr. Heath calls him) and his wife were studying it several weeks. You may not have met Mr. Kennedy, but his comment interested me. The title, “Energy Concept etc” he thought provocative. The definition of science appearing in the announcement — too limited. I’ve met with him in discussion of this MS version. He repeatedly had questions concerning the usage and definition of words as used in the text — as “mass,” “integration,” etc. Many times he felt that the explanation came too many pages late in the text for clarity. He recognized that definition in the course of the text — to indicate, for instance, where words are used in scientific or technical sense, and where in the colloquial sense — make for clumsy reading. He thinks my suggestion of a glossary in modified form an excellent one.

 

 Further, he says that he had considerable difficulty following the reasoning — particularly in the theoretical sections — without re-expression in the mathematical formulae. Perhaps Mr. Heath will say that Mr. Kennedy has a mind somewhat like mine. I admit I was surprised at the extent to which his criticisms duplicated recommendations for insertions that I had offered. In addition to the mathematical expression — in footnotes corresponding to the text (was Kennedy’s idea), there should be re-expression in graphs as another vivid interpretation of relationships. Concerning the theoretical expression of the energy concept of population, Kennedy feels it too terse and left with too many implications for the reader to comprehend or be aware of. Again, he felt the Principle of Indeterminacy to be appropriate in this section. One of the points to be amplified — and here again, he and I were in agreement — is in the general expression of the energy formula — changing the arbitrary constants taken as that of cosmic energy and mass — and offering an extended statement of the corrections (apparent) with these appropriately considered as variants. This, by the way, gives a clearer interpretation for the use of the energy equation — in applications as at the present time.

 

 The definition of pathology as absence, insufficiency or distortion of functioning (made in the Announcement), Kennedy criticizes for “Augustinianism.”

 

 Another of his criticisms — is the frequent appearance of what seem to be premature statements or conclusions — not developed until several pages or paragraphs later. This he feels to be a source of confusion and promotion of an attitude of contradiction in the mind of the reader.

 

 Discussion of collision and conflict versus contractual and consensual techniques in their correlation with the energy equation and predictions therefrom, particularly as on page 21 — caused considerable confusion to Mr. Kennedy; wars, he considers, are as dynamic as trade — and paradoxically cause an increase in production, multiplication of exchanges and greater complexity.

 

  Referring back to page 20 — the statement of examination of changes other than quantitative ones taking place in the energy flow — had no significance until I compared the population to the quantum of different qualitative aspects but identical quantitative.

 

 Mr. Kennedy also questions the statement on p. 20 of the population-stream drawing all its energy from its environment; he puts that in the class with Weismann’s (sp?) Biological Theory.

 

 Back to p. 21, The paragraph on the population of long life wave and low frequency of replacement as a positively qualitative energy flow — was another one that Kennedy took exception to, to admit that later explanations made it more acceptable than at this point. Kennedy also called to my attention that sociologists speak of incidence rather than frequency.

 

 Another recommendation is an appendix of statistical tables and charts — obtained from census and actuarial figures. A “little” work for you, Cecil; I know Mr. Heath’s answer to such recommendations.

 

 Mr. Kennedy points out that when he studied Homiletics — he learned how to write everything down in black and white, and leave nothing for the reader’s imagination or poor discernment.

 

 You can judge from these comments — that amplification and much elaboration of the application was the principal theme of Mr. Kennedy’s criticisms. On p. 24, until I clarified the point, he felt the statement in paragraph 1, last sentence in reference to amplification of the interior free relationships etc. to contradict what was said on p. 20.

 

 Again to back up one of my recommendations, Mr. Kennedy said he often found it difficult in reading the MS. to keep in mind the reasoning advanced — and wishes that an outline of the theme of the argument appeared side by side with the text.

 

 The paragraph on integrative and disintegrative trends on p. 29 also gave Kennedy difficulty; and here he found his mathematical formula made the discussion somewhat (but not entirely) clearer.

 

 On p. 34, he felt that the unexampled freedom from governmental restraints required explanation; here he inferred freedom on the part of land and resources.

 

 P. 35. He took exception to degradation to a race of morons as not taking into consideration the remarkable advances in modern medicine — particularly vitamin therapy and endocrinology.

 

 Kennedy recommends an elucidation by Mr. Heath of his ideas of government and attitudes towards it; certain of the earlier references to government he thought were derogatory and calling for challenge — although he admits he was much mollified by the discussion in the section on the “Citadel.”

 

 P. 38 again he criticized the over-simplification of the occurrences in the market; as you also have remarked, he objects that the market here is completely whitewashed; while, in contrast, government looked like such a blackguard. Reluctantly, he admitted there was belated clarification later in the MS. One of the difficulties he had that will be common to many readers of this treatise — is in the elimination of the pathologies in order to study the physiologic; the relegation of pathology, as exemplified by Mr. Heath’s definition is comparable to a similar handling of evil in respect to good.

 

 A “frame of reference” is what Mr. Kennedy feels is required — to obviate challenges from readers who would take exception to the blackening of government, the whitewashing of trade, etc. too soon in the text — and then not bother to finish the book.  This frame of reference would clarify at appropriate points in the text — and more than at the present — these ideas — including that on democracy, the present war, imperialism, etc — in order not to antagonize such readers before the complete explanations have been made — as in the subsequent extended sections.

 

 P. 43, Mr. Kennedy questioned that the collectivist alternative to ownership and private property was wholly ignored.

 

 He found these pages and paragraphs most commendable — that on page 45, 58A (paragraph 2), 58B, 61, 62, 63, 70 (paragraph 3).

 

 P. 46. Kennedy questions the statement that there can be no exchange of services until the convention of property has arisen; and later that “all new changes of possession are by a process of peace and consent etc.” P. 46, again he questions property and service as the origin of all abundance, etc.

 

 P. 49 — in connection with the legitimate use of force — is the question whether this is an apology for British, or other, imperialism.

 

 P. 49. He questions the statement of energy flow by coercion and compulsion in the public and governmental field — as unqualified by context and improperly inclusive.

 

 P. 61 — paragraph 3, concerning the “survival of the fittest:”                                                         the frame of reference question occurs again — as to what constitutes “fitness?”

 

 P. 65 — Mr. Kennedy questions the dominance or inclusiveness of the profit motive. Evidently it is not adequately clear how profit has been so significant in all the advances of civilization.

 

 P. 71 — Mr. Kennedy was enthusiastic about the illustration of the economy of Saxon England. He recommends that this section be documented. He wondered whether Mr. Heath had read one of Veblen’s books that sought the explanation for German Imperialism and the action of the Junkers, particularly in World War I. The present and past situations in countries such as Germany, not ______, as England. Kennedy suggested could be elucidated and elaborated.

 

 P. 72, paragraph 1 also needed explanation lacking in the present text in reference to the “essentially totalitarian plan with which Rome herself was born down.” The climatological, geographic explanation developed subsequently sheds light on this statement.

 

 P. 73, paragraph 3 — Mr. Kennedy asked for considerable extension of the statement, “The concept of population as an organization of rhythmic energy contains implications that are wide and deep.” He would like to know some of these depths.

 

 And that covers much of what Mr. Kennedy and I discussed.

 

 I think very well of the introduction of the phrase “disjunctive symbiosis” and of the entire elaboration submitted for my opinion. It is adequately illuminating. It met with Mr. Kennedy’s approval as well; his statement was that the entire MS. would be much benefitted by such clear and effective coverage.

 

 (Now that I’ve arrived at page 4 of this letter, I offer my apology for not having typewritten it — but I’m often interrupted if I put a letter in a typewriter, and we have only one typewriter.)

 

 Did you finally get around to reading Ouspensky (sp.?) and Beckwith’s book?

 

 Doctor and I were interested in your progress with the girl with the expressive walk — now that she’s not yet married. Did you visit her before you returned to Maryland! And how is the young lady of the wrong side of the tracks? Or are you on the wrong side?

 

 You know, you can wish luck to a veterinarian without wishing bad luck to our patients. We believe, advocate and practice preventive medicine whenever we can. We also are dentists, beauticians and hotel proprietors as the occasion offers.

 

 I’m looking forward to receiving a copy of the 200-page version of the MS. for any further consideration and for Mr. Kennedy’s reading. He’s on pins and needles concerning the changing in the two versions.

 

 I’ll Let you know what comments Mr. Lissner makes — if and when.

 

 When you come to town perhaps we can get together with Mr. Kennedy — possibly at his house — or in the graveyard, as Mr. Heath did when once they met.

 

 Keep me posted on all the news. Are you meeting more of the academicians?

 

 With best regards from the doctor to yourself and Mr. Heath and mine too, and also to Miss Lucille.

 

Cordially,

 

Pearl