RE: writ large, another sip

> What external validation or falsification applies here, though? You screw
up
> a bridge calculation and the bridge collapses. If you make a mistake in
> social criticism...what? Other people will certainly disagree with you.
> Hopefully the policy makers aren't paying attention. --Jim
>
> That is my point, thank you. Yet those in the essay see some sort of
> consequences, it may be all muddled but their world is not free floating
it is
> probing a connection with the rest of us. The social critic could use
some of
> that, at least the ones currently immune from consequences. -- Daniel

You're not arguing very honestly, Daniel, in that you reply by saying
"that's my
point," but then ignore the question I asked. I think you eventually get to
it
down below.
Jim

Jim, I don't claim to have a full solution to the problem but rather I am
just emphasizing that there actually is a problem. So, all those people at
the conference in the essay were hallucinating. Maybe they don't have a
handle on all aspects of the issue but they at least know something is
wrong. Maybe the way academia is set up fosters this disconnect, I can't
say for sure like you point out I am not an insider, but hey do you have to
be engineer to be leery about a rickety bridge?
Daniel

I would say that our ideas do have consequences -- sometimes they're the
basis
of decisions about whether or not we should go to war. Critique serves as a
check on ideas. But it's never completely clear, when you're dealing with
the
world of ideas, how ideas play themselves out in material reality. It's
certainly never as completely clear as the consequences of a bad bridge
calculation.
Jim

Granted, it may not be as simple as a bridge. It does not have to be. But
honed critical thinking skills should aid in coming up with some sort of
solution. If in the least, a provisional one.
Daniel

> This is common grist for the mill. Just about every one I know who has
> attended a college course has had this sort of experience. Yes, this is
> human, but the explanations are often rationalizations and the 'victim'
has to
> swallow it because of the authority of the grader with the veneer of
reason.
> This sort of thing goes on in academia, where papers are based on the same
> sort of 'reasoning'. -- Daniel

In neither of your examples did I see any hint that "reason" in an
Aristotelian
sense was the basis of the professor's decision. The first was pushing a
pretty
stupid and "unreasoning" valuation of "sensitivity," the second, from your
account, sounded like she was being totalitarian in her definition of
"prophet." What do either of these have to do with "reason," superiority,
or
intelligence?
Jim

I never claimed that their 'reason' was based on anything much less an
Aristotelian sense. What they have to do is that they played out their
position, as being considered intelligent - the assumptions that get rolled
up into the wad, to rationalize poor critical thought. That is the danger
of viewing yourself as a member of the intelligentsia, the ascribing of
rational means to all the thought of that particular person. I think you
are confusing my idea of an Intellectual, with some one who at some
particular time is actually engaging their intellect. Again, the line of
thought that if I can view myself as intelligent to the point where it
becomes my primary view of myself I start ascribing the label intelligent to
all or a significant amount of my thought without it actually being the
product of reason or criticism. Now, you say that others correct each other
and I agree but without some sort of method or system or whatever and with
no real consequences, it amounts to virtually anyone saying anything. I am
not opposed to anyone saying anything, but if an academic field wants to be
acknowledged as anything more than fiction (which is not a bad thing in and
of itself) then it must have some sort of mechanism to correct itself in
discerning the 'good' things that are said and the 'bad'. Of course, the
cacophony that we have spoken of attests in part to this, the superiority,
of course is the false conclusion that intelligent people always produce
intelligent results. Not every individual suffers from this but it appears
that at the very least it is a perception problem. If the general reader be
dammed as per Mr. Fish, then don't be surprised if many outside certain
fields don't take them seriously. I just read Hawkins's _The Universe in a
Nutshell_, one significant thing that I got out of it was how excited
Hawkins's was about his intellectual work and that he really thought that
the layman ought to know about it and be excited too. I don't see this
going on much in some other intellectual fields, I hope Mr. Fish is the
exception bust I suspect that this is not so, why?
Daniel

> I am not against discarding the term intellectual, I am more interested in
the
> phenomena reflected in the assumption that if someone uses or claims to
use
> reason they have a defector superior position.

Ok, but that's a *completely* separate issue from defining the
characteristics
of "intellectuals" or the intelligentsia.
Jim

I am not some much concerned with labels, only as far as they help define
the problem, but rather the problem itself. My concern was birthed in my
'love' of literature and my perceived disconnect in the larger field of
Literary criticism. Now, this could all be dismissed as poor perception but
why is this perception so wide spread? The essay attests to the existence
of the perception if not the actual problem itself.
Daniel

> Academics get involved because people assume that they have the most
developed
> reasoning skills (critical thinking), and I am pointing out that neither
of
> these are good assumptions.

If that's all you meant to say, Daniel, you should have just said it, and I
wouldn't have argued with you. But you've moved to this position from
another
one.
Jim

This is not all I meant, which would be clearer if you quoted the rest of
it. Based on your paradigms I am not sure you are the best spokesman for
what I mean ( cheap shot). It is layers of understanding, this is an
underlying layer, at least a proposed one for the bigger discussion i.e.
'the problem'.
Daniel

> Also, a consequence to these assumptions is resistance to any external
> righting mechanism/system. You can peer review but if the review process
is
> broken then you won't know if you are getting valid results. I am saying
that
> I suspect your 'system' is broken. I think that is what the essay was
sort of
> about or at least those attending the meeting saw something as being
broken.
> -- Daniel

What "system"?
Jim

Well, I guess a no car in effect is bad as a broken one, you won't be
driving anywhere. The system consists of saying things and then checking
what is said, things are said but apart from some unresolved internal
dialogue no check. Hence the system is incomplete or broken.
Daniel

> That is exactly my point, they had you or other craftsman to point out the
> failures in their work. The good engineer will pay attention the bad one
will
> be ignored (hopefully). But there is real external criticism (craftsmen
will
> gladly tell you they aren't engineers). Yea, we engineers are asses but
our
> work is measurable. It is ok to 'brain storm' but don't sell it as
anything
> other than that. -- Daniel

This is an irrelevant analogy. The same mechanism exists in all fields.
Professionals seldom all agree about anything. Again, you're making the
mistake
of thinking all intellectuals argue the same thing. They argue with each
other. People observing/participating in the argument have to choose sides,
but
at least they'll be presented, usually, with well argued positions.
Jim

You're flat wrong here. This applies because the issue is applies to all
fields and all suffer but some to a greater extent then others. I never
thought that intellectuals argue the same thing just that they are prone to
the same problems unless they install counter measures. Not all attempts at
righting are equal but some are clearly better than others. You side
choosing is fine but in the spirit of Mr. Fish, so what? They argue, sides
are chosen and then what? More arguments more sides chosen? Ok it's a big
intellectual exercise but don't be surprised if the guy outside the box
shakes his head, shrugs his shoulders and walks away. You can be Mr. Fish
or you can be on the essay's committee. Choose your side Jim. If you don't
want to answer to anyone then fine, then don't expect the respect, if the
internal respect is all that matters then well maybe I am just a bigot
again.
Daniel

> The best engineers work with craftsmen, owners, architects, communit
planners,
> interior designers, government entities and accomplish things together
> checking and balancing each other. I think philosophers can too but they
have
> to be much more careful about it since they don't often have team members
to
> give them that guiding kick.

No, the only real difference is that there's a lot of money involved from
many
different sources and the engineers are always -- always -- employees. They
work for the architect who's working for the owner who has to work with
government entities. It's not a big happy family, Daniel. You're talking
to
someone with 17 years construction experience. You idealize this process as
ridiculously as you criticize "intellectuals."
Jim

Yea, my entire motive is money, thanks Mr. Marx. The money represents an
object subject to risk among other things. A stake hold. I make no
idealizations just examples, it works (not perfectly) because everyone has a
stake with different but related interests. Like our form of government, it
has its problems but it works to some degree. By the way, A & E firms are
often owned by engineers (point of pride; good or bad), the real employer is
the owner, the one that brings the money to the table, one of many external
checks. Come now Jim, I hope you are employed, the good ol' days of
patronage are gone. I never said it was happy, but that is not the point
any way.
Daniel

> Yet, many who study philosophy don't see this. Maybe they are to close or
> maybe I have missed something but insert Scottie's elephant here. They
need
> to look for ways to check it. If they are making fiction or poetry, ok
that
> is what it is but if they are making claims of truth, well that includes
> everyone, it is not their personal property anymore. -- Daniel

Daniel, please be willing to consider that you don't know a tenth as much
about
modern philosophy as you think you do. Again, what you observe exists, but
it's
not everywhere or everything, or not even most everything.
Jim

I am more than willing, I will admit that I don't know a whole lot of
philosophy in the academic sense, or much in any other sense. But
concerning the extent, well, the essay's participants seem to indicate
otherwise. Mr. Fish's comments seems to indicate otherwise. The perennial
(faddish) nature of philosophy seems to indicate otherwise.
Daniel

> Your right if they didn't call themselves that, but some do if only
secretly.
> But regardless of labels, some equate their value in life with how smart
they
> are.

Yes. Engineers do this, doctors do this, computer programmers do this...any
member of any profession that requires at least a BA can be guilty of this.
Heck...electricians do this, plumbers do this...don't even need a BA.
You're
saying nothing here. "Knowledge puffs up." We already knew that. It's not
clear that you can single out any group as being especially above or below
any
other group in this regard.
Jim

Yes, that is why 'Intellectualism' isn't restricted to just one or a few
fields, it is in all these places but some soil is more fertile than others.
Concerning the one group compared to another, well, I suspect that those who
more closely associate themselves with an intelligence based self view would
be more prone and compounded by the lack of any humbling mechanisms. The
crafts man humbles the engineer, he make act the ass but his work will often
reflect the correction. Have you ever noticed the 'checked by' signature
blocks on drawings and computation sheets?

What's the difference between God and a doctor?
God doesn't think he's a doctor.
Don't get me started on the lawyer jokes.
Jim

And the engineer thinks he's a philosopher. Pesky knowledge, it is not
universal you know (sarcasm).
Daniel

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Wed Apr 30 13:01:48 2003