Re: writ large, for your consumption

Responses below...

Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:

>Intellectualization of the people would be a good thing? Education would be
>a good thing but not everyone has the leisure or inclination to spend a
>large amount of their time in study, reflection, and speculation.
>Daniel
>
I work full time (administrative job), teach one class, and fit all my
study in around that. I think reflection is a good thing, of course,
but don't think that lack of reflection is due to lack of time. I was
working 40-60 hours per week as an electrician when I was pursuing my
BA, and raising a family on top of that. I probably took time I didn't
have, but it'll be hard to convince me that people lack time.

>For a contemplative intellectual, you have a knack for reductionism into
>left field. Intellectuals don't have to write and speak and hold the same
>positions, they just have to have an attitude of superiority disconnected
>from reality. Of course, not every single intellectual share this trait but
>as generalizations go, it is pretty descriptive of the intellectual
>environment.
>Daniel
>
Actually, reductionism was what I was accusing you of -- and what you're
guilty of yourself, again, in this very paragraph. Look at what you
said: it is generally true that most "intellectuals" (we probably need
to define that word) "have an attitude of superiority disconnected from
reality."

Come on -- listen to what you're saying, and tell me it doesn't sound
like bigot talk. Have you really read enough or met anywhere near
enough "intellectuals" to be able to generalize a specific character
trait to the entire group? That's ridiculous. It's impossible for you
to know. I've known some "intellectuals" (at this point, I'm
identifying them with academics) who are just as you describe, and some
who were humble, and some who were...well...just human. They had their
personality strengths and weaknesses. You can trust one person to
answer personal questions honestly, but you better not tell them
anything because you know they'll repeat it. You can trust another to
keep your confidence but they won't, of course, tell you much. Some are
outgoing, some are obviously uncomfortable around people, some like to
drink, some are liberal health nuts, some are Christians, some are
Jewish, some are Buddhist, some are atheist, one guy I know thought he
could communicate with an Alaskan bear telepathically. He was a
Medievalist at one institution I attended.

They're all just...people.

I've met quite a few arrogant engineers and computer programmers, for
that matter, but I don't believe all or most engineers or computer
programmers are arrogant. These are human qualities that don't
necessarily have much, directly, to do with someone's job. That's why
it's a mistake to associate a personal trait, usually, with a group of
people doing a specific job. Yes, most prostitutes are promiscuous :).
 Get beyond that, and you're treading on thin ice.

>Running some colleges in most universities, yes. Educating our children?
>no.
>
I didn't say they were educating our children. I said they were
educating the people who were educating our children. There's a difference.

>It is one thing for the intellectual to try and saddle everyone with
>their particular baggage and quite another to see the effectiveness of this
>desire actually discussed. The only ridiculous thing I see is that so many
>still insist on their 'load' and struggle like hell to foist it upon
>everyone's back and are still so ineffective (not totally lacking in
>influence).
>Daniel
>
I still don't understand...exactly what is this "load" you're talking
about? What "baggage"? How is it "burdensome"?

>So Jim, you can't directly defend 'Intellectualism' so the B word is whipped
>out, don't deal with what I say, just impute motive, since we know
>intellectuals have developed a sure fire method for doing that. (I think
>this tactic is called Bulverism).
>Daniel
>
I have defended "intellectualism" on a number of grounds - the necessity
of critique, the fact that these people educate our educators, radical
differences in the ethics guiding mass culture over the last 40 years,
etc. -- and I think the "bigotry" label is one that's been earned.

You open yourself up to it whenever you ascribe specific personality
traits (such as arrogance) to a large swath of people simply on the
basis of the job they perform. It's a problem.

>Who blamed the intellectual for all the world's problems? How very Marx of
>you to reduce it all down to consumerism. What is wrong with earning and
>spending? Of course, like many worldly ills it is the excess of a thing and
>not the thing itself. But couldn't that be Robbie's point, excesses and
>extremes? Reason is needed and powerful, but not the only thing. Study,
>reflection, and speculation are good things but again not the only ones.
>Those who hard sell them at the expense of everything else is suspect.
>Daniel
>
I did qualify my previous statement...no, I don't think consumerism
*alone* is the source of the world's ills, but if there are burdens on
anyone, they come farn more from consumerism and not "intellectuals."

Remember that old Stones' song? "I can't get no. . .satisfaction"
 Listen to the words sometime :).

Who ever, at any time, advocated reflection "at the expense of
everything else? You're making things up, Daniel, and not paying very
close attention. I'm advocating reflection *along with* everything
else. To argue against this is to argue against reflection.

>And that is not a product for consumption, how? Granted, much of it doesn't
>have as wide a market as you would like but the last time I checked authors
>received royalties from their publications. Oh yeah, Barnes and Noble is a
>Sanctuary and not a place of consumption.
>Daniel
>
Nah, trust me, this isn't the way to make money in publishing. We've
been through that even on this list. No one's quitting their day job
for publishing their dissertation on Milton and the Star Chamber Decree.
 I like the observation that academic publishing produces a consumable
product, and this probably does impact on the publishing. But I tend to
think that the fact that we're all mired in the same system means
critique is all the more valuable.

>A difference? Does making a difference have intrinsic value like
>arithmetic? Doesn't making a difference imply a value system or some kind
>of morality and isn't that what all this is really about?
>Daniel
>
Daniel, you're arguing with an imaginary Jim and not the real Jim. Yes,
I am in clear support of a specific moral and value system. I've told
you this over and over again. Maybe lack of reflection on your part?
 I'm really not a relativist. I think we all tend to proceed from a
small set of assumptions -- assumptions that can change, but that are
fixed until they do. And some we never abandon.

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Tue Apr 29 12:13:40 2003