RE: this is a tragic situation now the comedy

Jim, I am talking about yours and John and many others who seem to equate
academic knowledge with intelligence. Many people make this blunder but it
seems that many in academia do it often since they prize intelligence so
highly and associate it with formal education. I claim that there many
people out there in the world who are smart people who know what they want
and how to attain it and they have aesthetic appreciation as well and have
learned quite a bit of wisdom without putting allot of ass time in a desk.
Also, it seems that the logic that 'I have a whole lot of formal education
and that makes me an expert and if you disagree with me you're an idiot" is
for me most seen expressed by those in academia (not all and not excluding
other areas) since they tend to be the most formally educated and that
somehow makes them experts in areas beyond the areas they have studied.

I know this covers old ground but if academia wants diverse participation in
all dialogues then don't go throwing around false authority and an appeal to
intelligence as if that were an argument. The two specimens from today
(below), the first assumes that it takes more intellect to appreciate
engineering then humanities, as if all humanities work like abridges are
meaningful. Many Humanities academician can't agree on what is good
humanities work but those who are not academics are stupid for failing to
see the point as well. A bridge carries the load and yes stupid people can
see that but how does a stupid person know when humanities work carries the
load? When you can answer that question then you can call these people
stupid for their inability to see without comment from me, but until that
day comes my tongue will wag.

Now the second, is if you disagree with me and my reason then you are simple
minded. The person may be simpleminded but disagreement is no test of that.

I am not trying to prove that Academia are the only ones who do this sort of
thing but if academia (particularly the humanities) lay claim to Intellect
as a major trait then a higher standard will be applied to their thought.

The idiot can act the idiot and what is he guilty of? But if those who
claim to cultivate the intellect act the idiot what are they guilty of? I
say idiocy would be the lesser charge.
Daniel

"The real difference in perception between engineering types
and humanities types is that even stupid people can see the point of an
engineer's work (some of us drive over bridges and work on computers
every day), while these same stupid people cannot see the point of
humanities work."

Besides, it's part of our job description -- a good professor should be
pissing off the people around him, even the simple minded ones.

When did "academia" classify people as "stupid and unimportant" -- Fish
notwithstanding, he's just one guy, not all "academia," and I doubt any
single comment can really fully express his ideas. He may not be fond
of "the common reader" (I think that was the actual comment, but maybe
you have another source?) -- but does that mean he really believes
everyone is stupid or unimportant, or does that mean he thinks the
-idea- of the common reader is bull? Remember Fish was the guy that
brought the world Reader Response theory....

Jim
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Mon Sep 29 17:24:17 2003