Re: however, this is a tragic situation

Responses below:

Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:

> 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

Daniel, I've read a good many articles in media sources about "academia," and
most of them demonstrated a gross ignorance of their subject from my point of
view. Of course I don't have statistical data about every article out there, so
all I can reference is my own experience. Most sucked, some were pretty good.

> 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.

You know, it's funny, you accuse me of a kind of materialism in a later post and
then complain humanities research is "not anchored in the real world." What do
you mean by the "real world"? The world as seen by you? The world of "common
sense"? The world as everyone understands it and has it fed to them?

There are two ways of looking at this.

In the first way, some academics deliberately try to see the world differently,
rather than just repeat everyone's biases back to them.

In the second way, I don't understand the relevance to "the real world" of the
scientific opinions, for example, informing Keat's poetry. This is purely a
matter of historical research that is either valued as an activity in itself or
not valued at all -- there will be no economic or immediately practical use for
this knowledge.

I think that's just fine, and think that historical research is a good thing in
itself.

> 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?

No, Daniel, not every single piece of humanities research is designed to inform
us about the condition of man. The field as a whole does that, but individual
books or articles do not, necessarily. Some of them try to answer historical
questions, some try to demonstrate how the language is working to create an
effect. Many are only of interest to people in the field. Even in specialized
academic journals devoted to a single author, it's doubtful that every article
would be of direct interest even to the specialist. Most articles only try to
answer a specific question, and that question isn't being asked by everyone.

> Again, must we be initiated into its higher secrets?

No, you dumbass, you just need to care about the questions being asked :). Most
people don't. I don't blame them.

> That is the root of its self destruction, it is held apart from
> the rough, unclean hands of the masses, preserved for whom?

Boy, you're really on a roll, now. :)

> 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.

I already answered that question. You even quoted me. Just scroll back up and
read my answer :).

Good freaking lord... :)

> Do you critique the work and if it survives the
> ideological rake over the coals then it is good, honest, hard work?

No, ideology (a nice, Marxist word you use there, Daniel -- careful you haven't
been infected) has nothing to do with how I evaluate what is good, honest, hard
work. I compare the facts being presented with the facts I know, and if all the
facts aren't being accounted for, and if the author should have known these
facts, I think the author really hasn't done his or her work.

All these words I chose -- honest, hard working, and careful -- has to do with
how many and what kind of facts are gathered up to come to the work's
conclusion, which may have ideological content and may not.

If I read a work that helps me understand the literature and unravels some
knots, man I'm appreciative.

But you'll see this has nothing to do with representing any kind of ideology.

I could list a few academic books that I consider really good, and if they were
worth your time to read you'd see what I was talking about.

But I don't think you really care to know the truth about this.

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Mon Sep 29 22:41:48 2003