Re: writ large

Jim writes:
<< I think the irony consists in the fact that theory itself is asserting
what everyone else, in the mind of the author, knew all along. >>

I didn't read it that way. I had read that the article or author (choose
your own terminology) was critical of the theorists in question, perhaps
being critical of their claims. I had accepted too uncritically that the
article or author WAS critical of their claims. I see now that the reading
you suggest -- that the article or author was critical of the theorists,
while positing that everybody knew the truth of their statements all
along -- might be true.

It seems clear that there's some ribbing of the panelists. It is not clear
whether the author or article agreed with their statements all along or
disagreed and thought they were being ridiculous. Perhaps some textual
evidence I've forgotten or never noticed would clear it up. Perhaps not,
and it's just ambiguous, and we don't know.

Do what you like with this in regards to the on-again-off-again Intent
discussion. I, however, don't and won't have any "smug knowledge that *I*
know just how stupid and unoriginal she was being, even when she doesn't."

Jim goes on to write:
<< Of course, whenever we talk about groups, we need to be careful. Most
people, I think, are not prone to abstraction or analysis. This seems to be
supported even by tests like the Myer-Briggs. [. . .] When you talk about
intellectuals with their heads in the clouds, I tend to think that can only
be determined on a case by case basis. >>

Fair enough. I was being with you that perhaps the people could use a
little something -- and with Daniel and Scottie that perhaps the
intellectuals (however we mean that) could too. I think we need to drop
such broud statements when we talk about specific people in either "class,"
though it is likewise valid to speak of generalities (noting, of course,
that they need not represent every particular) for both. You seem to be
satisfied speaking of generalities in the one case while reluctant in the
other -- disclaiming, of course, that generalities don't speak of any
specific individuals. I simply share your disclaimer and your thoughts on
the one hand, while not sharing your reluctance (so long as I have the same
disclaimer) on the other.

-robbie
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Fri Apr 25 17:38:45 2003