RE: writ large, another sip

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.
Jim

My comments are based on the need for external criticism not reason-less
intellectuals, where they get using reason depends on where they started
from, so showing you criticism that doesn't employ reason from
intellectuals is not a part of what I am saying, in fact the opposite. It
takes more than reason, Jim, we can both frame a house using a hammer it
does not follow that both framing jobs will be equal. It does not follow
that if you use a hammer in a framing job that you will actually use it to
drive nails. The difference between the everyday variety and the
professional type is that the former usually has external validation or
falsification but with much in the realm of the intellectuals a reasoned
position can carry on for a while only being displaced by another fad.
Insert your complaints about the academic world's abuse of Derrida here. It
is an example that can be taken to extremes but concerning your point, using
'reason' does not guarantee the results. That is exactly an assumption of
the intellectual. Now concerning examples, 'openly assume their own
superiority' is a subjective criterion. A better, less subjective criteria
would be its response to external criticism and in that area I could give
you a couple of examples off the top of my head; Richard Dawkins, Stephen J.
Gould who both have rejected criticism from those without their field. By
rejection I mean name calling, like childish and ignorant and no direct
response to the specific points raised. In the field of Geology, I studied
Geomorphology and I brought up serious short comings unexplained by the
theory based on my knowledge of Rock Mechanics and I was told in effect that
Geologists don't need engineers to tell them about their own theory. This
was a graduate course mind you. I could give you specific names but that is
not relevant.

There are many examples in the English courses I took, in one instance, in a
technical writing class we were assigned a project to write clear explicit
instructions on how to perform a specific task. The criteria for a
successful project would be the ability of the rest of the class to perform
the actual task instructed. So several students did papers on how to slice
a tomato, how to put sheets on a waterbed and other such things, everyone
watched and graded the presentations based on how clear and thorough the
step by step instructions were. I did my paper on how to refinish a rifle
stock. Many of my fellow classmates gave me C's and D's not based on the
clarity of my writing but on their objections to firearms. This is not
speculation on my behalf this was what was written on the evaluation sheets.
When I brought this up the PHD holding professor criticizing the basis of
the grade she defended it not based on my actual work but on the premise
that I was not sensitive enough to my fellow classmates. I had my paper
proof read by a professional technical writer and she had some minor
corrections but thought that it was good. So, the value of or the
definition of good technical writing was somehow (a rationalization was
used) tied to not offending my audience by the topic itself.

Another example comes from a friend concerning a 'non-religious' old
testament prophets class. He wrote a paper on an old testament individual
commonly held to be a prophet. He received an F on his paper because the
class's definition of prophet did not apply to the subject of his paper.
Now during his final exam, one of the essay questions asked about some
prophetic aspects of another character of the old testament and my friend
wrote his essay arguing that the exam subject did not meet the definition of
prophet established in the grading of his previous paper. Of course, the
Professor gave him an F which he contested up the various departments and
boards and as a result eventually had another professor grade his essay
which he received a good grade. He went on to earn a Masters in History
and another in education. The original Professor failed to see the
relevance of his class definition in all of this.

Another example would be a debate with a self proclaimed "intellectual" who
debated a friend via email. I could email this to you for your amusement.
The intellectual distributed brochures on University campuses and had a web
page which was how my friend was able to contact him. My friend tried to
persuade the pamphleteer to post the debate on his page, but of course he
refused.

I could go on, is every academician an intellectual? No. Is every
intellectual an academician? No. But all these examples qualify under the
loose definition of intellectual.
Daniel

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.
Jim

Your first four sentences I agree with. But comparing it to these other
things is not as agreeable, again I am not criticizing professionals but
Intellectuals. Keeping the terms clear. I am talking about those who are
willing to submit their product to external criticism. Most engineers,
doctors, and interior designers do this but few literary critics do and even
fewer philosophers. Those that reject external critics are subject to the
'nasty' label of intellectual.
Daniel

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.
Jim

You dichotomize theory from theorist, ok, but it is not the theory itself
but how intellectuals handle the theory. That's it, it is not handled as a
theory but often as dogma. I am not against dogma per say, but if it is not
subject to outside criticism or some non critical privileged place then well
don't be surprised if they are marginalized. The truth has a way of
floating to the top eventually, so all the in house veiling is only denying
the inevitable. Are you saying that relevance is not important? It seems
that the disconnect ness was birthed as a direct product in how
intellectuals structure their discourse. If they actually stoop to listen
to those outside their narrow filed then they may actually become connected
and relevant and meaning ful to more than those in close proximity to their
belly buttons that Scottie mentioned.
Daniel

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.
Jim

They may have mocked themselves, which is great but they didn't disarm
criticism, they participated in it.
Daniel

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.
Jim

That is the point, intellectuals say all kinds of things but they listen
only when it comes from a certain direction, so in that point they are in
agreement, again, we are talking about intellectuals. Think about it Jim.
Why are they referred to as if they are defined (principally) by their
intellect. We all have some humility and arrogance but to lay a superior
claim to intellect and then expect the glaring critical eye not to notice is
well not very intellectual. Hey I enjoy discussion and argument in the
classic sense, it hones but I have some intelligence but I could never refer
to myself with a straight face as an intellectual nor even defend it.
Again, come out on the thin ice, shhhh, a secret Jim, the vast majority of
it is thin ice.
Daniel

Institutions aren't arrogant, Daniel, only people.
Jim

No, but they reflect the people that invest in them, for good or ill. I try
not to focus on institutions but hey they exist and many have gone radically
astray drugging the people with them like a runaway wagon. Maybe that essay
is the first step in the write direction, I am sure Scottie can tell you
what the other eleven steps are.
Daniel
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Tue Apr 29 18:02:16 2003