Goodenough Gismo

  • Gismo39
    This is the classic children's book, Goodenough Gismo, by Richmond I. Kelsey, published in 1948. Nearly unavailable in libraries and the collector's market, it is posted here with love as an "orphan work" so that it may be seen and appreciated -- and perhaps even republished, as it deserves to be. After you read this book, it won't surprise you to learn that Richmond Irwin Kelsey (1905-1987) was an accomplished artist, or that as Dick Kelsey, he was one of the great Disney art directors, breaking your heart with "Pinocchio," "Dumbo," and "Bambi."

  • 74%How Addicted to Blogging Are You?

  • Google

Blogs I love and/or learn from

« God Bless You Please, Mrs. Robinson | Main | Two-Wheeler »


Richard Lawrence Cohen

Sounds potentially great. You should definitely try to be his editor. As I read it so far, there's a lot of Buddhism in his viewpoint, but he departs from Buddhism in valuing the individual self. I find that extremely congenial. Some people would probably find his idea of life studies too narcissistic and not rigorous enough -- where's the data? -- but that doesn't bother me. My question, coming from the other side, would be how his approach differs from what artists and some subjectivist social thinkers already do.


I can't pretend to understand it's depth. In all honesty, he sounds like he's trying to replace religion... with a God at it's center, for a new religion with himself in the center. Ourselves. Is that a qualifier for narcissisim? I would think it would get pretty lonely after awhile. Not to mention boring. If I spent so much time on me, my kids would be even more unruly!! And if one were to live with no regrets, does that mean nothing is considered sinful? I suppose sin is a Christian thing anyway. Jewish, too? Anyway, yes I'm pretty ignorant of the cultural realm. Post religion? Wishful thinking . Or, is that called reletivism? One more thought. If one had no regrets, what learning curve would this leave us to imprint upon our children?


That's not how I understand him when he talks about "regrets." If you read what he writes about male sexuality, it's obvious that he has a lot of regrets of that kind. I think he means "regrets" about not having lived fully, about having pursued pleasure instead of reality. (See what he says about "the desire of the body" versus "the desire of life", and about having to be mindful of our own "desire and evil.") That is not narcissistic, and it is even fully compatible with putting God at the center, though perhaps by another (or no) name. I think he is putting the emphasis on our own lives more as laboratories of truthful living than as an end in themselves.

Anyway, I found his comments more tantalizing than fully fleshed out. For instance, I want to know more about what he means by "the central axis."


OoooHHHhhhhhh. I didn't read it yet, so I'm sorry to jump to that conclusion. The way you put it, it sounds very healthy. He's still deep. I remember reading what he said about abortion, sorta paraphrase-wise; how the awareness of what a woman is doing is admitted and subconsciously understood. Maybe I got that wrong, too, but found that to be a courageous angle. I have a hard time with the "blob", non-human conception that people use to defend abortion. I can see the desperation or the annoyance or the not-great-timing reasoning... but, admit what exactly is being done. Does that make sense? Anyway, thank you for explaining this deep-thinking philosophy to me. I'll eventually understand :)

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

New on FacTotem, my Natural History Blog

Jacques' Story: Escape From the Gulag

The AmbivAbortion Rant

Debating Intelligent Design


  • Listed on Blogwise

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2004