RE: writ large, another sip

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.
Jim

Here, you use yourself as an example, OK, but many who advocate
Intellectualism view study, reflection, and speculation (academically) as
the only source for knowledge. The point is simple, study, reflection, and
speculation need objects and it is not enough to approach any object
exclusively in that manner, but the essay points out how disconnected many
philosophers are. Now, virtually all people (at least the ones I know)
study, reflect and speculate but they aren't professional Philosophers or
critics. You proposed intellectualizing the masses and the essay speculated
on their ineffectiveness, but, people being people already practice critical
thinking to the degree that is needed in their particular lives. And people
being people, some do it well and some not so well. But the intellectuals
tend to criticize this often forgetting that they too are people and have
their own particular motives. Not everyone enjoys reading, and some even
enjoy working with their hands in solitude. Now, if a person should decide
to sharpen their critical thinking, great (the same way I would feel about
you brushing up your electrician craft) but that doesn't make them less in
any value sense. They, also, don't need me defending them either, the point
of commenting is pointing out that the critical mind needs to be aimed back
upon itself often. The Intellectuals often remind me of those two old
curmudgeons in the balcony in the Muppet show. They do a lot of commenting
on the performance but no performing. Sure, their commenting is a
performance that is subject to commenting. Why are intellectuals immune
from intellectual comments from the stage?
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."
Jim

I think I said reductionism from left field, but the problem is not reducing
but poorly reducing. Where we trim reveals values. I guess intellectual
can be defined as those who think that their particular vocation of
reasoning gives them a superior and often exclusive position of criticism.
Now criticism is fine, reason is fine but they are not the only valid
critics. Hence the superiority reference. I think both you and John O.
cautioned the list concerning what validity is to be ascribed to many
Deconstructionists out there. You guys argued that they are miss-applying
it. Well the criticism of intellectuals is very much in the same vein.
Many intellectuals run around ascribing their conclusions to reason and
critical thinking but don't bear up to scrutiny. OK, there is an external
check on most fields of endeavor but it appears that in certain academic
fields this is not the case and in fact, any external check is violently
resisted, why? If Enron can't police itself why would we think that
intellectuals can?
Daniel

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.
Jim

Yes, I have read and met and spoke with quite a few. I am not talking about
their personalities I am talking about their intellectual claims, Look at
Fish's comment. Now, he wouldn't be out of line if what he is purporting
could be externally verified but the nature of intellectuals is to blame
those outside of the inner circle. There is a cacophony of claims often
asserted and defended passionately but no conclusions just the spirit of the
fashionable. That is the nature of literature but should that be the nature
of the methods of critiquing it? Leaves in the wind, the outsider looks in
and sees a tempest in a teapot but nothing survives in the passage out the
spout. I am not talking about consumables. The intellectual behaves as if
he has property and when you ask him to show it to you it turns out to be a
path and not property at all. Ok, but it doesn't end there it is a path
straight out of an Escher picture. Ok, but why the hard sell if it all
boils down to such a personnel picture. Come and Join me on the ice Jim,
what is the worst that could happen? We end up all wet, so we'll laugh and
dry ourselves off.
Daniel

I still don't understand...exactly what is this "load" you're talking
about? What "baggage"? How is it "burdensome"?
Jim

The baggage is all their ever changing theories, their assumptions, and
values underlining their critical thoughts. It is burdensome because they
expect people to reflect these so called conclusions in their lives,
economies and politics. They can't all agree but some how the rest of
society should follow their lead.
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.
Jim

The necessity of critique is not the exclusive property of the intellectual.
The fact that some intellectuals try to guide society and mass culture is
not a defense but more evidence. They are like many other members of
society who use positions of authority to influence others. What you call
bigotry in me you defend as privileged critical thought not because
privileged really matters in the long run but it casts doubt on the
intellectuals authority. If the short comings of intellectualism is real
then the doubt is well founded. Why is skepticism tolerated in some on some
objects but not of others on different objects?
Daniel

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.
Jim

I a specific trait to an institutionalized phenomena, and well like most
institutions it is made up of people. I agree it doesn't have to be that
way, but never the less it is. If this is what you think a bigot is, then
fine call me what you want.
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."
Jim

The burdens of free markets and the natural need to eat and sleep etc. are
natural burdens that apply to everyone but the intellectual burden is a
synthetic one, like digging holes to improve my character.
Daniel

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.
Jim

Jim, I said study, reflection, and speculation. The heart is meaningless
without a body to pump oxygen and nutrients to. Again, I am not arguing
against it only the value of it compared to other things.
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.
Jim

Who says money is the only motivating factor in consumption? Trust me?
That is dangerous Jim. Don't get me wrong, I trust but with the awareness
that it is dangerous. Again, critique has value but not all critique is
made equal and critique born in the manor doesn't add value either.
Daniel

>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

I know you are Jim, and I know that other intellectuals do too but the essay
implies a disconnect here. I have heard the intellectual arguments assuming
all kinds of values but that doesn't mean that 'difference' all ends up in
the same direction. Jim, I am not criticizing Jim, I am criticizing
intellectuals. I thought you preferred to go by a much better label?

Daniel

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Tue Apr 29 13:50:10 2003