table of contents


On World, Love, and Gloom: An Open Conversation with Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht

A conversation with Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, Albert Guérard Professor of Literature (Emeritus) at Stanford University. He is a recurring guest on Entitled Opinions, and he is back to discuss amor mundi, our collective future, and the role of love in politics alongside our host, Professor Robert Harrison.

download transcript [vtt]
This is KZSU Stanford.
Welcome to entitled "Pindians."
My name is Robert Harrison and we're coming to you from the Stanford campus.
Last week we aired a show about Amor Mundi or "Love of the World."
Christina Rosetti once wrote a poem called "Amor Mundi," like St. Augustine, Christina thought
"Love of the World" is the easy path.
"Oh, where are you going with your love-locks flowing on the West-Wind blowing along this valley track?"
The downhill path is easy, but there's no turning back.
I'll go instead with Hannah Addent who wrote, "What is most difficult is to love the world as it is."
Loving the world means neither uncritical acceptance nor contemptuous rejection,
but the unwavering facing up to and comprehension of that which is.
I said it before and I'll say it again only that kind of love gives the world a future.
How deep is our love?
Does the world have a collective future?
These are some of the questions on tap for us today.
Stay tuned, we're letting it roll on entitled "Pindians," like there's no tomorrow.
Does the world have a collective future?
That's a question that asks not so much about the world but about why so many of us feel that it's on the verge of self-enylation.
That feeling is not uncommon in the human psyche.
The end is always near.
The world is always approaching an ultimate threshold.
Yet instead of the promised end, all we get are images of that horror or what we call history.
One thousand years after apocalyptic hysteria swept over Europe toward the end of the first millennium AD,
it's still one thing after another, after another.
"I can't go on. I will go on."
Or as the seafarer poem has it, "Wayneeth the watch but the world holdeth."
For those who love the world, that's good news.
The world holdeth.
For those who load the world, no news is good news.
What is most difficult is to love the world as it is, and I get the feeling that these days world loathing is getting the better of Ahmod Mundi.
Yet who knows? We are in the realm of subjective impressions here, and meanwhile, the world holdeth and meanwhile, in title opinions goes on.
I'm joined in the studio today by my good friend and colleague, Zep Gumbrecht, the Albert Gerard, Professor of Literature and Meritises, Stanford.
He's been a frequent guest on in title opinions, and he recently published a thought piece in the German newspaper, "The Velt" called "A Symmetry in the Horizon of the Future, a Serene diagnosis of the present."
That's my English translation of the title.
Zep's article intersects in many ways with the topic of Ahmodundi, so I'm delighted you could join us today to further our discussion about being in the world, and in some cases being out of the world.
Zep, it's been a long time since our last confession, welcome back to in title opinions.
Thank you, and in a way it feels like being here again with you is part of Ahmodundi.
Now, about this essay that you're quoting, it's indeed a "at the same impression, it has an affinity with your topic and with Hannah Arends' topic of Ahmodi, but it is not, and that may be interesting, completely identical.
What I really mean by this asymmetrous following, I'm referring maybe more than to Ahmodi, I'm on one side to a discourse that's very prevalent today, and that's this discourse of the world's
coming to an ending. I mean, an academic concept that I don't like very much for it is the Anthropocene, which is basically a long present that starts with the first negative impact of human presence on the ecosphere.
You can say, "Ever since humans existed, that happened, so you can say, since the first industrial revolution, whatever."
And there seems to be a certainty in that discourse that within plus minus 50 plus minus 100 years, humankind will come to an ending. There will be no humans on the planet anymore.
And what I'm referring to is that to different degrees in different cultural contexts, whenever you make an exception, and you say, "I'm not happy with this discourse," you produce cynical answers.
People don't take you seriously as an intellectual. You cannot be a good intellectual if you don't agree with this discourse.
So that's the one side. And of course, I think what is behind this discourse is a waning of Ahmodi, and that's where we should go.
But as I'm talking about in a symmetry, my observation is that strangely, and I have no full explanation for that, we can observe that in the private sphere, personally, individually,
people are eager, overly eager, and optimistic about their future. I mean, it gives you one banal symptom, and that's individual investments.
I mean, if you look on the websites or in still printed daily newspapers today, the sections in the business part, where they give personal advice to how you can invest your money, whether that's $100 or $100,000, and not talking of big capital, becomes a big topic.
So you can increase your money that almost becomes a hobby horse. It becomes very, very important. Or, as you mentioned, that I'm a retired professor, I mean, the projects that people have about their private retirement, that is as if life was geared towards retirement, you're retired, and then you do philatelia, for example, or you're retired, and you start roller skating, or you're retired, and start really having sex, which maybe you know, age-wise, is not the right moment.
But everybody has very optimistic individual projects about what to do with their life, not only with old life. So that is a strange asymmetry, and perhaps it could be a topic how these two sides interfere, but that's what I'm describing this essay, and you beautifully translated the sub-tide-lide, I don't even know what the German origin was, but serenity is an important word there.
I like a lot anyway, that maybe one day we can develop your serenity in a title opinion, but what I wanted to say, I'm not trying to describe that with a vested interest. I'm not taking sides. I mean, I'm at first trying to describe what is going on to produce a complexity to which I then can react hence serenity.
My impression is that you're trying to describe also a general mood of, let's face it, first world well-off citizens who can afford early retirement, who can afford to get excited about their investments, and who have this efficient sort of interconnectivity to realize that there are serious problems facing resource depletion or environmental degradation, and so forth.
Now, the pessimism of the world future is, on the one hand, a curiosity in your article, it's the asymmetry of it is that people in their private lives seem to be thriving and very much looking forward to a future. It's when it comes to the collective future that there's this pessimism.
So, my first question now in terms of substances, how much of your diagnosis is restricted to the first world, and to a first world bourgeoisie, which is actually very well-off and has the luxury to contribute significantly to the environmental degradation of the planet as a whole, because they have the means for more consumption, more airline miles, more.
Refrigeration and all these things, how much of your diagnosis would apply to countries outside of this privileged sphere?
Yeah, I mean, that's of course an obligatory and a good question, but I will hold to a certain degree against it. I mean, one degree would be to say, you know, this is the type of analysis and essay that you can in the phenomenological tradition only do about the world of which you are part.
Of course, about the world which you inhabit, so it's difficult for me and I wouldn't feel entitled.
Okay, so let me then ask a question that goes more into the kind of nuance that you appreciate.
Our world and this kind of pessimism of the collective future is there, in your opinion, a kind of subterranean guilt on the part of a European bourgeoisie about the degree to which their privileges are a problem?
No, I don't think so, and maybe unfortunately, but I actually, my observation is that people embrace this pessimism individually again because it entitles them to claim an individual possession of exception.
Yeah, I mean, you are aware of the problem and because you are aware of the problem, you can talk from a position of condescension.
I mean, yes, I can see the problem, but nobody else can see the problem.
Give you an example, I think the country I'm relatively familiar with because for some years I've been teaching there now for five weeks per year, so I have a certain familiarity with the everyday.
And this is the most extremist Israel.
Now, if you take this impression from an Israeli point of view, there's no future.
You apply it to Israel, but you always then take the position of those who are friends with a Palestinian.
Of those who are not privileged.
Of those who are the political exceptions.
So I would say individually speaking that pessimism is a basis, a background against which you can claim a superior level of ethics.
I mean, ethics today in an extreme way is the most frequently used concept in everyday German.
Everybody claims that she or her ethically superior against the background of this pessimism.
All the others are not ethically responsible, but it is strangely, and this is my criticism, not so serene criticism, against the background of people of your own class and against the background in that sense it's hypocrite of your own behavior.
Well, I'm with you there.
I don't know if I'm going to call it hypocrisy, but I would call it bovis for much better.
In this sartrean sense of faking chep droof.
Yeah, it's a self-deception where I can see the problem.
I recycle my trash.
The world is going to hell, but I am not the problem.
The problem is with the world.
Well, no, you actually are the problem because if you universalize, I've said this before in entitled opinions.
It's a kind of categorical imperative and you materialize it and say what would happen to the world if everyone behaved the way I do, or what would happen to the world if everyone consumed the amount of energy that I consume every year.
Well, the earth's carrying capacity would be so overwhelmed that it would not be possible.
The typical first world citizen cannot universalize his standard of living.
So this is what a whole contact called liss Saluil.
The Saluil believes that the world is a problem that they are not the problem.
In other words, they believe that they are not part of the world, but they are part of it.
I mean, so we have this analysis and this is how my essay intersects with what you're saying about Amumundi, but of course, what I find interesting about the way in which specifically Hannah Arend is using that concept is perhaps in my reading.
That this Amumundi is not deep, as you were saying, as she's saying, deep in the intellectual sense.
Yeah, I think there is a very basic positive relationship to the material world that surrounds us, to the social world that surrounds us.
Maybe a desire that's pre-predicative.
A desire that does not yet have concepts.
And this is what I think is bracketed.
And this is what I think allows this pessimism, this sophisticated pessimism.
You'll write this more ways for our pessimism of the Saluil to be so prevalent.
And there is something elementary that seems to be lost and that perhaps it is difficult to resuscitate in an intellectual way.
I mean, that's what people like you and I can do to analyze it intellectually.
But this very elementary, this very naive, drive and desire of the world underlying Amumundi is what fascinates me most about it.
And what I think is really lacking and what I would like to resuscitate if I could.
Yeah, Amumundi, sometimes there's misunderstandings that the moon does the world.
I mean it, I think, how the aren't means it and Saint Augustine meant it as the world that is made by humans for humans and is really the public sphere.
It's not the private sphere.
And that means it's the political. You're right, there are all these different loves.
You can have the love of the society that surrounds you. You can love your animals. You can love your future.
Whether we can love the political world is the real challenge.
And it's difficult. Let's face it.
It is what is most difficult because you look at policies and so forth.
And you know an ordinary citizen who doesn't have to be a saloam can get quite frustrated at a certain level of dysfunctionality in the political sphere.
And yet I think it's still dangerous to just surrender, renounce any such love of the political.
That doesn't mean that I'm calling for activism because really there's also nothing that is more close to the movies far we're analyzing than the illusion that if I Twitter every other day about how awful it is.
I'm not going to be about how awful Donald Trump is and I'm being politically active and doing something good in the public sphere.
No, it's not how the Amor Mundi works.
Absolutely. Now just before we go into this analysis, before we go into the analysis what we can do about the public sphere.
And I agree that is the topic that we can talk about.
Let me take one step back to this elementary. I'm on Mundi.
And I thought I give you as an example. I mean I have four grandchildren.
I think something that a grandfather should never say so far my favorite among the four is two years and two months old and that's olive.
And I identify a lot with her not because she's very cute because how could I identify with that.
But identify a lot with her because she likes things. She likes words for example.
So there was one day when she speaks really well when she was experimentally starting every sentence.
She can speak full sentences which quite unusual at her age with unfortunately. She liked the word unfortunately and she was making nonsense sentences with unfortunately but she liked the word unfortunately.
Or you know I was sitting at home when I was typing and talking to somebody in Brazil and proud that I can pronounce and speak Brazilian Portuguese with the real accent and all of a sudden she was fascinated and loved these words.
You know there's something primary or when she's having lunch I mean she spends two days per week at our house. She likes new foods. She just likes them. She touches them.
So this very elementary and very immediate among Mundi is something that I think and I fear that in the process of education and almost necessarily we lose and we teach people to lose and it is very much in the good sense of the country and imperative.
So if you reach a certain degree of abstraction which in order to have a public fee in order to have morality you have to.
You're losing this immediacy that I'm still seeing in this two year old girl. I mean there is something that is very difficult to preserve but something and that was why I would like to mention that.
We should try to preserve as much as we can as an instinct as a very elementary basis of our Mundi.
Good good.
So in our conversations before coming on air you know the Amor Mundi show you mentioned in reference I think to the Vico passage that I cited that you know man begins by loving himself and his own utility then he gets married and loves his own utility that of his family.
And then of his tribe and then of his city then of the nation and then finally when the whole world is united by treaties and commerce etc.
He loves his own utility plus the welfare of the entire world and the entire human race.
And I mentioned in the monologue that can Amor Mundi actually exceed a certain limit spatial I don't know spatial cultural units and you also seem to believe that it might be unrealistic to expect that an Amor Mundi can actually go beyond quite limited delimited spheres of immediacy.
See that now we are entering what I think is the true political problem there.
A certain degree of I mean you know if one can use that word global frustration or frustration with parliamentary democracy let me just say I mean one of us has to make the sentence that you know quoting Churchill or everyone a quote I mean it may be political form form of political institution with many problems but we certainly do not know a better alternative.
So I do think it is worth trying to conserve that by any means but given the fact that it is based on 18th century philosophy and basically not by quoting but based on the imperative the country imperative that you are quoting it has an inherent problem that it will always extend to universality.
And to paradoxically refer to an American phenomenon I fear that the success that Donald Trump had at a certain moment in this country was precisely because perhaps without knowing it without any cynicism he produced an impression that there was an immediacy that there was a presence in the contact with him that other politicians would not be
the politicians would not convey. I'm not saying he did that I'm not saying that he's the solution but the symptom is interesting there was an impression of immediacy that he and some other politicians and maybe right wing politicians are producing that is not inherent to that system of parliamentary democracy and I think that should be a focus maybe of our discussion but certainly a focus of political thought what is the scale how far can we go with that.
Before we lose this impression of immediacy.
Well in fact I think you're describing also the kind of immediacy but love that he was able to inspire among his most devoted followers.
And whether parliamentary EU style democracy whether it just does even though it might be the most rational system of government and in the long run it will produce the greatest good for the greatest number but it's very difficult with such a dispassionate,
a democratic machinery to get people to commit themselves with that deep love which is instinctive in all of us.
If you allow me for almost autobiographical narrative but it is at least about build on culture about a rendition.
I mean the first foreign language that I learned at the Gimna assume at the high school with 10 years was Latin.
And of course in this democratic and post-World War II Germany everything had to be practical so it was not very evident why I would have to learn Latin.
And I can still remember my Latin teacher told me because one day the Roman Republic, he said the Roman Republic speaking Latin can be an example for a new unified Europe.
This was long before there were any EU projects.
And then yes it changed my motivation and I was focusing on the Roman Republic and all of a sudden I liked Latin.
And then indeed it was still during my high school years the European economic union and then European union came all about and this appointing story is that while this is a beautiful normative idea and an idea that in the extension of enlightenment makes a lot of sense until the present day to de-national.
It has never really ignited it has never really inspired any function.
I mean the elections to the European Parliament had always a very low participation the coverage of the European Parliament was not interesting.
And while it has produced many positive effects for the European citizens it has always remained an abstract idea that has never been able to inspire to ignite that love.
And I'm not using a much benign concept that nationhood has produced during the 19th century and even during the early 20th century in a very problematic way but nevertheless there was an intensity that the EU has never had.
And here when you talk about that abstract quality my brother Tom wrote recently this book on bridges and we had a show on bridges a beautiful book.
Yeah he pointed out that if you look at the Euro all the bills have bridges on them.
Well that's fine you're bridging different nations and so.
But I pointed out that I think the Euro is the only currency known to me which does not have any faces on it.
And these you know this is a big difference between a personification of a nation or a people with certain figures.
It's almost like in the Catholic tradition you know you have saints you can relate to saints you can't relate to God very easily because he's very abstract he's very remote.
But the saints are these personifications of the good of the holy of the transcendental.
The European currency has no faces on them and I think that is related to what you're talking about as something that cannot that it can inspire the same sort of I hate to correct you and I'm not correcting you but but I will make your point by correcting you okay.
I mean the coins actually or at least the two euro coin I'm certain about the two euro coin has faces and it has national faces.
I give you a good you know I know but I'll give you a good example.
There is for example the face of the Belgian king on to euro coins that you're using in Spain or in Portugal or in Germany.
Now for the Belgians that might be nice there is even you will not know the face of a former colleague of ours at Stanford culture Rasi on one of the Austrian versions.
But the problem is that while you and I have memories of culture Rasi and that may produce positive or negative crime in he was so to speak the invent of the birth control pill for our listeners and an interesting colleague at Stanford whether you like him or not.
This produces memories for us but somebody using a two euro coin in Portugal with a face of culture Rasi has no reference of it.
And in that sense what you were saying about the EU bills even with the faces it doesn't help because these faces have no local context and that in that sense a currency circulating with national faces in this EU space is precisely the concretization almost like an allegory of the paradox or the problem we want to point to.
So I gather that you believe that Amor Mundi beyond a political entity such as the nation might be very problematic and unlikely but I want to go back in this vein to what you were saying about Donald Trump.
Did Donald Trump in his appeal and inspiration of the kind of devotion in some cases fanatical devotion of his followers did he also expose the fact that perhaps America is too big a nation or that it's not one nation that it's maybe two different nations at least in the sense that a civil war never really came to an end it kind of just calm down as simmers but that it can also
is erupted at any moment and that he was making his appeal to a kind of America that is smaller you know in scale and in size which has much stronger cultural delimitation and mentality and that it's not inclusive of all the 50s it's you know what I'm getting I completely know where you're getting I mean I think it makes it makes a statement necessary.
Not for the typical political logic that you have to be of the left or whatever anti Republican Party when you are a humanities intellectual but for aesthetic reasons that have to do much with his looks actually you know when I see a photograph of Donald Trump I've never had a sympathy for him.
Now yeah it's hard to know how you listen to me yeah I mean I would even not exclude that in this very I mean just not exclude this is known the other side.
That in this very elementary sense in which I was referring to my granddaughter he has something like an animal movie I mean this is not just I mean you know people were saying oh he was fascinated by power.
I would actually think to give you another example of the left I mean the Brazilian president Lula whether you like him or not is a typical politician who is fascinated by power he wants to have power.
I think Donald Trump is more fascinated by people listening or yeah by people listening to him and people listen to him that could even be people of the other party that that would be good for him so there is an immediacy that seems to drive him yeah.
You're absolutely right there's not a craving for power very exceptional it's a craving for attention. Neither power nor economy I think you know he hasn't made much money by being a president hasn't used this opportunity.
So there is a craving for attention but a craving for attention means that you I mean again my granddaughter shares that you know when you realize that Ricky my wife and I were fascinated by using unfortunately all the time of the beginning of her little sentences she was doing more unfortunately because you wanted more attention.
So there is something to it that is not cynical now and in that sense and just to again prove your point the fact that in the re-election campaign that he as far as I'm concerned fortunately last.
He just bracketed California he didn't didn't go to California one reason of course was that was his political advisors he knew that he couldn't win California anyway so why going but.
Secondly because he knew that in California he would not have that craving that perhaps he would have in South Dakota that he would have you know with the white former proletariat in states like Pennsylvania etc etc in that sense.
I think he kind of conjured up almost an American community that doesn't include all the 330 million Americans but that created a surprising community because as a colleague of ours once said to me and that is right on the classical political map Trump is not just of the right he is of the people who.
But I think that is a very strange and a very mixed group of the population but it is I think a group of the population not typically Republican voters that's not what they are it's a group of the population has a craving as Trump is a craving for their attention they have a craving for immediacy and this craving for immediacy is what.
President Dave form of politics not only in the US but in the US and also in the US not fulfilling is not responding to.
But as well as a certain result among a profound grievance that also motivates it's not just.
All about love it's also about hate so and hate is a passion so it does enter into.
The sphere of our mood because passions are what I'm more in the larger sense really encompasses I agree with you and we could actually say now being more self critical.
That this course that has been.
Breded in and is still breeding in the academy the political correct this course is above all a discourse that doesn't allow you to hate.
Yeah and I think this absolute prohibition of the passion of hatred of the passion of disliking something.
The passion of disliking even people I mean this law of universal inclusion is problematic in that sense so craving for immediacy is not only positive but perhaps we are the point.
And maybe would be an interesting re formulation of the R and concept of Amomundi I mean that Amomundi is.
Relation of immediacy to the social sphere but also to the material world that is surrounding us that is not only on the positive side.
Another motif in the Amomundi monologue that you mentioned which was lamp light love let me remind listeners or those who haven't heard that monologue that I coined this term lamp light love which comes from a W B H poem where the line is how can they know who have no solitude that truth flourishes where the students lamp has shown and they're alone.
And I spoke about the kind of love that the student not just institutional student but any reader who withdraws from the world and brings to the page a mental concentration and a certain kind of light of attention to what is being read that this lamp light love is also foundational for the world.
It is where our knowledge ultimately springs from it's where our communication you know through publication it's where our historical memory cultural memory comes from it's so we are a great deal to this lamp light love.
And you set something very curious I'd like you to expand on and that's set you don't feel yourself very much of that lamp light love it's not it's a form of reading or a close reading that you don't necessarily sympathize with the line right.
Did I get you right or yes you got me right I mean I was I was just wondering how I couldn't should react to it I mean I think it is on the one hand it is and my reaction to your lamp light love was a reaction in that sense it's a reaction to a certain mythology to a certain aura that the concept of reading capital are has not only in the American academy but in America in general.
I mean people go to their reading groups and I mean reading is always surrounded by this aura and if you're not a good reader and not a dedicated reader you can almost not be part of a respectful or respected society and I have had a certain reaction against that because I'm a retired four and a half years ago because I wanted to have time for what intellectually fact.
I mean this is probably not a moment but I will have to admit sounds very eccentric what fascinates me the most is writing and not writing in an easy way.
But writing and working on book projects where when I'm beginning I'm not I don't know yet where it is going where I have a complexity for which I have to find a form and in that sense.
I feel if I'm honest that my reading is always more related to this desire to bring things together to produce complexity and ultimately to write a book or to give a lecture but but ultimately to have a moment where I managed to give a form to this complexity.
But the moment that you're describing the moment in the literal sense the moment of this lamp attention moment that is a moment that I have in my life I mean as you know I get up really early been 2 and 3 a.m normally because I like this morning in the dark and I have a lamp over my desk at home and then I'm focused but I'm not necessarily focused on the reading I oftentimes don't end up the reading as soon as I get a good idea.
So you know last week I was reading the chapter on conscience on on on give us in in high degree being in time and where he has the thesis that conscience doesn't talk to us.
And then all of a sudden he has a strange word that I will immediately translate is that the important thing about the car of conscience is its directiveness it's a dress it's an address it hits you at a certain moment and you know without any doubt it means you.
And when in the focus of my lamp light I had this word and this idea I stopped reading the chapter and I was writing down notes and I was beginning to imagine a chapter in a book on conscience you get my point I mean I get the point but I for me that's lamp light love okay that is exactly the way in which a certain state of mental concentration.
Of which reading is only a part but then the taking of what the hearing of what you have read because it's strange that you use that example I think that any even short moments of concentrated reading you feel addressed by what beautiful then we completely agree but we have a different concept I mean.
Oftentimes don't finish books and not because I don't think they are great but all of a sudden like what I was saying with his chapter I have this moment and I have to embrace this moment and I have to do something with this moment and in that sense yes I'm a passionate reader but I'm not a passionate reader feeds a blind to finish every chapter to finish every book that I'm.
Well you know that I referred to the Vita nova in my monologue where at all lamp light love where Dante says he'll stewed your quanta post so and the strange thing there is that he's written this book and he's gotten he didn't get to the end but he says I'm going to leave this book unfinished.
Because I want to learn how to say about the interest what is never been said of any woman and I need to study a lot more before I do it so he doesn't even have to finish writing his book because his love of knowledge is love of study is going to take him elsewhere so all that's very good but I also want to remind a lot of the listeners of entitled opinions are aware that you and I ran a group for many years called the philosophical reading group and.
There we actually did meet every week on Thursday evenings and paid actual close attention to some of these works anyway that's but that was a good example because we were reading we had a weekly assignment we had a weekly assignment.
I mean you could say that we we had the time when we say two out of three sessions are really very good astonishingly good I mean these were not classes were that we were giving are we're facilitating it but we're all of a sudden days of focus that is enormous and that's not pretty.
So that was they were lamplied moments in that moment well yeah and the interesting things is oftentimes what was revealed in the just hour and a half discussion is the intimacy that each individual in the room had brought to the reading and it was a.
And so I was very diverse and each one was coming from his or her own lamp into this larger light of you know of a group and it was anyway that's where we are but I mean if I can pick up this idea this memory that we both have.
I mean that was a size for those who have never participated it was depending on the reading that we had I would say normally been 20 and 40 people and there were normally.
I mean there was no obligation to participate was not a seminar we didn't get grades you could be there there was only obsession if you come to the second session you make it to the end of the quarter come every week and.
What I think this was a format and this also was a size that we have lost for politics yeah there was no goal beyond that the goal was to do philosophy in that group and.
I think by coming there you showed that it mattered to you and this cohesion and this concentration and this passion really because people went there because they're a passion for doing philosophy whether they were speaking or not.
That is a scale and that is an intensity that we seem to have largely lost in present day parliamentary democracy and and often in the classroom in the classroom as as a reflex of that.
We've been speaking with my good friend Zep Gumbrecht professor emeritus at Stanford Zep you are writing a book on voice and I can't wait for it to be finished not only to read it but to also discuss it with you.
I've gotten you know a lot of previews about it and even on the way here you were telling me about the section you're working on in terms of the voice of the Hebrew God versus New Testament to voice.
Jesus and so forth all sounds very very compelling so I have a question for our for listeners is there's anybody who has any passage from the Gospel.
Or from the act of the Apostles where the voice of Jesus described by more than the adjective allowed.
The only passage that I found is the adjective allowed and this isn't it is last words when he loudly says my God my God why have you forsaken me but this is the only specific description which is very strange.
That is strange because one gets a sense of an image of Jesus that he would be a quiet kind of soft spoken guy.
That's what I always thought. Thanks again Zep. I'm you Robert we've been speaking with Zep Gumbrecht here on entitled opinions I'm Robert Harrison thanks for listening.