Reponse to Robbie

I've taken too much time to respond to this, partly because I know I was
being more of a jerk than was really warranted, and partly because
reading John O's interchange with Luke reminded me how tedious certain
types of arguments can get (although his and Luke's improved near the
end a bit).

So here are responses:

> Jim writes:
> << What is the difference between a "definition" and an "elaboration," and
> why does what I offered as a "definition" not work as one? Be specific.
> Give me reasons and not just assertions. >>
>
> I think you misunderstood me. What I tried to say was that perhaps I ought
> not to have asked for a definition, but an elaboration upon the definition
> you already gave.
>

A request for an elaboration is fair, and I did misunderstand you. I'm
pretty sure I've provided this elaboration in other responses --
especially in two to Scottie.

> Jim writes:
> << If you think the word "computer" is a "generality" then of course you
> would disagree with my statements. I don't think this is a very meaningful
> definition, though -- if every word is a generality (this would apply to
> verbs and adjectives as well as nouns, by your description), then the word
> "generality" is synonymous with the word "word," and that's hardly common
> usage either.>>
>
> First and most important, I was not disagreeing with your statements. I
> cannot disagree with them if I don't understand quite exactly what they are,
> and at the time I opened this last message from you, I was no further than
> trying to understand the basis of your distinction -- which stage makes
> agreement or disagreement quite irresponsible.
>

This isn't completely true. If you chidingly asked me for a definition
(or elaboration), as you said, then the question was at least partly
rhetorical and served the function of a disagreement.

> Second, your capacity to see something you've never seen before, something
> not even quite like anything you've ever seen before, and recognize it as a
> member of a class you are familiar with (computer or otherwise) suggests the
> presence in your understanding of some sort of generalization of the class.
> Of course this is not the sort of generality you were talking about -- this
> was very clear to me when I mentioned it, and I thought its clearness to me
> was clear to you. I shouldn't have assumed that, obviously, and I'm sorry
> for having done so.
>

Two responses here:

First -- I don't think the capacity to see something new as a member of
a class of something you're familiar with estabishes the validity of
"generalities." For one thing, if you're really unfamiliar with it, how
do you know you're not misidentifying it?

Next, this seems like a repetition of the identification of the word
"generality" with the word "word" or "definition." I don't think this
is valid at all for the reasons I gave in the previous post. People
don't use the word "generality" in place of "definition," ever, to my
knowledge. I'd like to see this in a sentence.

Now, if you abandon the idea of "recognizing something new as a member
of a class" and just argue that the existence of classes requires the
validity of generalities, I would say that this again is mistaking the
word "generality" for "definition." I would also say that if you tried
to create an abstract definition of the word "computer" that made all
computers readily recognizable and distinguished them all from
non-computers (as well as fit current usage), you'd find yourself in a
great deal of trouble.

You'd have the same problem with the word "tree," for that matter.

This is what happens when we talk about subjects generally without
applying these "general principles" to specific examples.

> I was not suggesting it as a replacement for your definition.
>

No, but as a response to me in the context of this discussion, it had to
be meaningfully relevant to my definition somehow. It had to invalidate
it somehow, otherwise it was irrelevant.

> Jim suggests a provisional definition of "generality," similar to his last
> but with a few more careful details, and then writes:
> << Now, the really pressing thing for this discussion is whether or not my
> definition of generality fits Luke's statements that I called
> generalities -- which, of course, it does. I believe I started this when he
> provided a generality about "enlightenment" that supposedly held true across
> different religious traditions (but doesn't). >>
>
> I was not especially interested in the religious part of this conversation,
> primarily because I wanted to avoid being in another such conversation.
>

Ok, but you need to realize that this is what I was always really
interested in, and was not intending to argue for any "general
principle" but to apply a specific judgment upon a specific statement of
Luke's.

> My
> aim here was not to suggest that Luke was correct in his talk about
> enlightenment, but, initially, to (quite playfully) tease you for your
> treatment of him, and, if you were interested in my teasings beyond a smiley
> or two, to suggest a more thorough explanation of your distinctions, which
> were not clear to me.
>

If you say that Luke was "correct in his talk about enlightenment" then
you are indeed participating in a "religious discussion" since the two
topics were not separate in Luke's comments.

> Jim writes, concerning my comparison of the Blake quote to a religious or
> ethnic generalization:
> << Just like Luke, you have to misrepresent what you attack. >>
>
> Again, first and most important, I am not attacking anything. No attack
> here. Least of all am I attacking Blake. I am not insulting or dismissing
> the quotation when I say that it can very well be called a generalization; I
> had always read it as a very playful irony, generalizing the worthlessness
> of generalizations.
>

I don't think it would prove to be completely true that "you're not
attacking anything" if I were to carefully read all your responses to
this thread from beginning to end, but I'm willing to take this as your
intent and go from there.

> And then:
> << Blake didn't say that "people who make generalities are idiots." He
> said, "To generalize is to be an idiot." In other words, the _act_ is an act
> of idiocy. Otherwise intelligent people can do stupid things, you know.
> Since Blake was passing judgment on a specific act (which I called "habit of
> mind" earlier), I would say this isn't a generality. He's not talking about
> a "class" of people united by a set of characteristics (like, say, Jews),
> but talking about a type of act people with all kinds of different
> characteristics can commit (like, say, telling a lie).
>
> I am paying attention. Maybe you mean the smiley to take the edge off
> comments like that, but it doesn't really work, and it bothers people.
>

Speak for yourself, Robbie. Say it bothers _you_. Other people can
speak for themselves. Be a man.

:)

> And so far as I am able, I am also thinking clearly; and I have been quite
> forthright about not really understanding what you were saying, so no need
> for the accusation. And I will quite adamantly insist that you are in no
> meaningful way my "opponent."
>
> Suggesting that I am not thinking clearly and, accusatorily, that I don't
> really understand your position
>

At this point you're becoming tedious -- going on and on about a single
comment while ignoring the meat of the response. I'm going to pass over
the rest of what you say until I find something substantial. While up
to this part of my post I did make at least two jibes, they deserve a
couple of jibes back.

Ok, here we go...substance.

> I must admit that in the example I gave I made Blake's infinitive into the
> people acting because it made my point more clear, but the case remains that
> even with Blake's words as you quote them the assertion rings in my ear as a
> generalization. If you allow that an act can be an object (which maybe you
> won't, though we can do this in our grammar and I think we do it, at least
> in some sense, in our thinking as well), your acknowledgment to Daniel about
> statistical generalities or things like them suggests an acknowledgement of
> what seemed clear to me: that generalizations or acts of generalizing
> compose a diverse class of objects. To use your definition, a descriptive
> statement about generalizing -- whether of the people doing it or of the act
> itself -- can still qualify, it seems to me.
>

I think at this point it would be much more useful to give you the whole
of Blake's context. I'll do this in a later post. I'm currently
reading Frye's _Fearful Symmetry_ and he has a paragraph or two about
how important the rejection of generalities was to Blake's art and
poetics. The sentence, by the way, was marginalia of Blake's in a book
by the painter Sir Joshua Reynolds, whom Blake despised as a painter and
perhaps on a few other levels too.

> Since you think the example I gave is poor (I guess because it generalizes
> people instead of instances of an action?), we can easily change it. I
> don't like "To lie is to be dishonest" because of Scottie's observation. It
> is an unmeaningful assertion.
>

In my response to Scottie I dealt with this at some length. You should
read that response and get back with me.

> How about, to follow as closely as possible the grammar of the Blake
> quotation, "To speak is to be a liar." I've got a diverse class of
> "objects" (all possible instances of speaking) and I lump them into a single
> category (lies, or, more precisely if you like, instances of being a liar).
> Like the Blake quotation, one might even like this statement for some
> glimmer of truth one recognizes in it, however exaggerated. Maybe because
> one takes all speech to be necessarily an imperfect approximation, maybe
> because of our constant politeness-lies, one might appreciate this
> assertion. Still, it makes a sweeping generalization and one might just as
> well say that, strictly speaking, it isn't true.
>

While that follows the grammar, I don't see how it follows the same kind
of logic. Blake was talking about a limited kind of verbal construct --
a generality (even that in a limited sense, given his context). Speech
is a VAST subject.

> Even if we exclude the constant acts of generalizing that I referred to
> before and maintain your common-usage definition, it seems to me that we
> must admit that NOT all acts of generalizing are acts of idiocy. Some
> generalizations are, in fact, true -- even if in some specifically limited
> way. Many generalizations are useful, even indispensable. You insist,
> perhaps rightly, on "problems inherent in" statistical generalities, but you
> do acknowledge their usefulness, and, presumably, that their makers and
> users and not necessarily being idiots.
>
> Thus there are cases of generalizations that are not accurately represented
> by Blake's generalization.
>

I think by this point you should have already seen that I agree with
this last statement, but again, this entire part of your argument is
only relevant if Blake was really interested in making a statement about
every class of objects that could possibly be called a generality.

I don't blame you for taking this in that direction, but you're simply
wrong. This part of your response is irrelevant. This is my fault,
though -- I provided a quotation out of context, so it certainly had the
appearance of covering a lot of ground.

But, again, the only way to properly respond is to cite more of and
about Blake. Maybe later.

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Wed Jul 16 21:25:15 2003