Re: writ large, another sip

Daniel --

I'd like you to provide me with two or three of your own examples of
"intellectuals" and show me how they fit your paradigm. So far, you've
only been able to work with the example I provided. Heck, even just one
of your own would be nice.

I'd also love it if you could, specifically, show me examples of this:

>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.
>
This would require two things -- showing me "intellectuals" that openly
assume their own superiority, and showing me an example of criticism
that didn't employ reason. If you say that all criticism employs
reason, just some are better than others, then you'd seem to be
validating the work of intellectuals by associating them with reason.
 In that case, they just do professionally and exceptionally what we all
do on a daily basis.

This is what I really think is going on with philosophy and literary
criticism, by the way. We do indeed work out a philosophy of sorts,
even if it's an anti-philosophy philosophy. We all read and interpret.
 Some people just devote more time to these activities than others. We
all do home medicine and first aid, but we're not all doctors. Most of
us put things together at some time in our lives, but we're not all
engineers. We all manage to arrange our furniture in some way that at
least makes sense to us, but we're not all interior designers. We can
resent the literary critic, philosopher, doctor, engineer, and interior
designer for assuming their "superiority" all day long, but this is
really just commentary on our own sense of inferiority.

The article didn't point out the disconnectedness of the philosophers
themselves, but the disconnectedness of "theory." The philosophers
themselves, the article pointed out, ran to political commentary to
maintain their own "connectedness" which, in this case, I think means
relevance. Within the context of the article, that only validated the
assumption that theory was meaningless.

Great illustration from the Muppet show. But they were indeed part of
the show :). You forget yourself -- you're outside the little square
box, they're inside it. The Old Guy's commentary was a fictional mirror
of a critical audience, something like Mystery Science Theater 3000
(from the good old days...). By making criticism part of the show, the
show disarmed criticism.

You seem to speak of critique from "intellectuals" as if it were
ubiquitous and completely in agreement, at times, then other times
complain about the lack of agreement. In reality, of course, there's
little consensus about virtually any issue, but the argument itself
serves the purpose of forcing us to come to whatever position we hold
deliberately and consciously.

Institutions aren't arrogant, Daniel, only people.

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Tue Apr 29 14:33:31 2003