RE: however, this is a tragic situation

It's not that the work is seen as stupid, Daniel. It's that it's almost
never seen at all except through media caricatures,
Jim

You know this how? I agree that it is not seen regularly but it is seen
most often when it informs the choices and acts of its adherents.
Daniel

and when it is seen it's not understood (sometimes due to the complexity of
thought, sometimes because of the use/abuse of jargon, sometimes a mixture
of
both).
Jim

You miss the point that it is often misunderstood internally by those who do
the work themselves. The main reason that it is often misunderstood by
those who look into it is not because of complexity of thought, nor jargon,
nor a mixture but because it is not often anchored in the real world. Much
of it is reaction and discussion of ideas that are defunct yet limp. The
caricatures are often more honest of its appearance than those in the work
are willing to admit. These ideas are bandied about without actual contact
with the earth and when they do shred on contact their adherents rush over
and collect the tatters and build alters for them.
Daniel

But this is besides the point, because most of this work isn't
intended for mass public consumption (and shouldn't be).
Jim

Why not? They claim to be subjects that inform man of his condition. This
is not fit for the public? Again, must we be initiated into its higher
secrets? That is the root of its self destruction, it is held apart from
the rough, unclean hands of the masses, preserved for whom? It truth and
knowledge of the humanities for those who know? Know what? Do you want to
know how, in principle to solve an indeterminate structure? I can explain
it to you if you like. If you have fair math skills I can do it with words
and we can derive the relevant equations. No secret, hell they even show
architects this stuff. So, why not?
Daniel

There's a difference between a "humanist" and a "humanities scholar,"
just to keep our terms straight. A bad scholar is a dishonest one or a
lazy one or a sloppy one, that's all. A good scholar is honest, hard
working, and careful about methodology.
Jim

I said humanitist: one who's primarily works in the academic fields
classified in the humanities in most American universities. How do you know
when a scholar is bad, dishonest, lazy, or sloppy? I bet it is pretty hard
to tell in these modern/post modern times. Is that why the work is not
intended for the public? It's cloak of respectability will fray? You still
didn't answer the question. Do you critique the work and if it survives the
ideological rake over the coals then it is good, honest, hard work? But
what exactly do you call a bad humanitist? Your bad humanitist is someone's
good humanitist and around the mulberry bush you go, you the non-engineer
slap the arrogant engineer with clear arithmetic, good, yet how does one go
about slapping the arrogant humanitist? Shhhhh, tell me, I won't tell the
public.

Conclusions in humanities derive directly from the ideological assumptions
it makes, and then many use these conclusions to change society but the
public should not know that this work is not intended for their consumption.
Thanks Father Jim, I'll be back tomorrow if absolution.
Daniel
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Mon Sep 29 20:29:09 2003