"I do like [aesthetic objects] and say odd things"

Happy Sabbath,

So, our name is agenda item #1, perhaps, now that our mottoes are coalescing nicely: I hadn't thought "between the greater us, enter the notes that / more-than-not define our mealstock ways" was motto material, exactly (and Katerina reasonably challenged what 'mealstock' means, and truth be told I was thinking about the meal worms the luckier captive turtles eat--our own Grinch and Brian make due with dry substitutes...); now we have "I do like [aesthetic objects] and say odd things"--we can play on the objective/subjective dichotomy in this motto, and to that dialectic allow me to add my philological philosophy, attached.

I love the reminder of your historical perspective, Jon--somehow I don't remember it being so streamlined, as the four rather vertical parts read efficiently. When I came to the end of the second canto, I read "gladly" and thought "gadfly", in the fullness of Plato's method. The "it" that travels through this poem is not the same habit I warn my students against in their essays: they neglect to clarify the pronoun due to a casual and sometimes care-less approach to their 'argument'; here we more consciously consider the stream of phenomenal consciousness: from Jefferson (and may I propose Madison's "Federalist Papers") to Lincoln to 20th and 21st-century voices. "Carry it" and "carry on" now stretches into a fourth century--America is no longer a 'young' democracy, even as 'coming of age' and 'coming to terms' should remain generational challenges/opportunities.

Agenda item #2: the corporate designation or design. 'Productions' connote a line of ware, a label that can be eventually retailed; 'Institute' has a more academic tradition, a la the 'Goethe Institute'; 'Lyceum' is, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, "a hall in which public lectures, concerts, and similar programs are presented". The 'lecture' notion doesn't resonate to modern sensitivities, but I quite like the inclusion of the wider arts. I love the term 'philology' because it is so intrinsically easy ('phil' = love, 'logy' = word) and at the same time ineffably deep in the respect of language nuances, history, application, evolution and foundation for the more abstruse science of 'aesthetics'. Since I'm in a famili(ar) context, I do not mean to sound aloof in such extensions: we use words for infinite reasons, and as Christians we come to the exquisite deference to aesthetic mystery: "the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express" (Romans 8:26, NIV).

In keeping with my mediocre role as English department chair (which often meets Wednesday afternoons, when my mind is 40% on the basketball games I'll play a couple hours later that day!), we can stop with two agenda items. Anyone out there have a third or fourth? And, as always, attachments for our accrual are always welcome! I like the idea that Greg Loftness has something in the ether-world that threads Ski-doo with the stuff we conscientiously will continue. All respect for Chad Hummel (really--I'm not being ironic here), I would wonder how a Harvard/U of C valedictorian would similarly regard such archival efforts, beyond our temporal and menial efforts to fulfill.

love,
Dan