Re: Response to Robbie

Robbie,

Your criticism of my responses has changed now.

First, of all you suggest that I've misrepresented what you've said.
Frankly, I don't see where I have, so I can't respond to that charge.

There have in fact been requests for a "single-sentence" and for a "short
paragraph," from you and from others, even using those precise phrases.
There have indeed been requests to give an answer to the "What is..."
question designed simply and in "plain-language talk," "so that we can know
it when we see it." You've been doing exactly what I've said you've been
doing.

The second criticism seems to be one of "tone" and "timing." I was being
"unfriendly" and "unhelpful" and I waited too long to say "even that" the
word referred to a heterogeneous set of texts. Because of this I lost the
opportunity to be seen as "a helpful and friendly man."

Well, imagine my disappointment.

And I explained that my use of "almost arbitrarily" when I speak to my
students about my approach to evaluating their responses and my not using the
word "correct" in such a case, as discussed in my original post on the
subject, was designed as protection against them mistakenly thinking I was
evaluating their readings based on how well they repeated or approximated the
ones that I gave them, was designed rhetorically to urge them, even compel
them, to create their own, using as much of the text as they could to support
those readings, and as much of whatever discussions (about many sorts of
things) might have taken place between us all as we read and re-read the
parable or the text in front of us.

You tell me that this answer "misunderstands the question."

That's a shame, because it's the only answer to the question that I have.

But let's review.

1.) Somehow, I've misrepresented you. Fine, I'm sure you can correct that in
your own posts.

2.) I've been unfriendly and unhelpful and took too long in saying the
helpful things I did say. Fine, I'm not really worried about whether you
think I'm a friendly guy. And I've meant everything I have said about why I
believe that what you have been asking for and the way you've been asking for
it represents the worst sort of approach to complex intellectual questions,
and not only because it begins with the assumption that those interested will
not want to read. I have offered, over and over again, to read with people,
to help them read, to read together, to explain while we read. That is the
limit of my "friendliness." I will not, however, encourage the strange
desire people have around here have to discuss things they haven't read and
don't want to read.

Finally, you say again:

"You spoke in defense of not answering the question, and I -- contrary to
what I have learned about you -- pushed and questioned.  I will try to
remember to stop doing that."

You keep saying this sort of thing, and yet I never see you actually fulfill
such a promise. Your eternal return is fine with me; I believe I am right
about this and see no reason not to keep making these points over and over
and demanding that people who wish to learn about and discuss these things
responsibly take the time to read the texts and I'll be happy to read with
them; but that your requests as they stand, without the desire to read
together and to be specific in our reading, are intellectually irresponsible
indeed demonstrate a lack of respect for at least these particular complex
ideas and "long and difficult books." But I don't understand why you bother
to keep saying you are not going to discuss it anymore or question me anymore
when it is clear that you are. I'm glad that you are, but I don't understand
the need to keep using such "bowing out" phrases when they don't really mean
anything.

I look forward to your response.

All the best,

--John

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Mon Mar 10 07:16:04 2003