Re: however, this is a tragic situation

Responses below:

Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:

>Criticism is such an odd fellow, inductions from such a small sample are
>valid at times and invalid at others, what is the tool of division? Will?
>Daniel
>

Right -- there's no way to really talk meaningfully about a relatively
small sample.

So all I can do is tell you my impression of what I've read so far...so
far as that goes.

>
>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?
>Jim
>
>Who said materialism is the real world? real world is the world as it
>exists as fabricated by its maker. You haven't been paying attention Jim.
>Daniel
>

Paying attention to what? The "real world" as defined by most of the
people out there who you want making decisions about academic curricula
does consist of the material world, either philosophically, or
practically, or both.

But you're avoiding the question. What did you mean by "the real world?"

>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.
>Jim
>
>I'll insert another so what here. How is the difference or another set
>biases better? Better is a term of comparison which implies a choice which
>is an object of the will. Now, I'll say again, "so what?". Is this the
>mission or purpose of the humanitist? At least Nietzsche was more honest
>about all this.
>Daniel
>

Who said anything about "better"? Sometimes different can be valued for
itself....

Sometimes.

This isn't a "so what" if you're curious about academic's pov. But
you're not, really.

>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.
>Jim
>
>Our we back to that Jim? Is the humanitist work limited to this? Does not
>the humanitist often parley even this into a vision of the world? And this
>vision requires only a mental tangent with this world it superimposes it's
>vision on? Or should that vision for validity's sake seek more contact?
>Consequences and accountability, Jim, a man can die from a little tiny grain
>of sand if it is placed carefully.
>Daniel
>

You're sounding very paranoid, Daniel. That is, I think, the bottom
line with this. You're very worried that academics might actually
propogate ideas you disagree with.

Gasp.

What's going on here?

No, humanities scholarship is not all about this. But a some is.

Just on a side note, not all involved in humanities scholarship are
"humanists," Daniel. One editor of an article I submitted to a
publication in Canada accused me of being "anti-humanist." I asked,
"Why am I obligated to be a humanist?" That was the end of that
discussion, and yes, the article was accepted.

>I think that's just fine, and think that historical research is a good thing
>in itself.
>Jim
>
>How is it good in and of itself? It is only good if it informs the person,
>and that information is manifested as good. Historical research is just
>historical research like a knife is a knife. Is a knife good in and of
>itself?
>Daniel
>

Yes, a knife is good in and of itself for utilitarian purposes, just as
historical research is. I'm not using set ontological or ethical
definitions of "goodness," here, just saying that historical research is
a good thing.

>>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.
>Jim
>
>Since when has intent mattered to you Jim?
>
Intent matters absolutely when you're talking about -individual motivation-

But where did I directly reference "intent" in the above paragraph.
It's still there. Please copy and paste the part that makes reference
to this.

> If the public takes up an aspect
>of humanities or humanities in general for discussion then what is that to
>you?
>

That's great -- it only seems to happen in the area of historical
biography, though.

>If a humanitist brings his expertise to bear upon society at large
>then has he not changed the intent?
>

I never made reference to intent, and you're really getting more and
more idiotic with every sentence you write.

You shift the subject from the "intent" (supposedly) of individual
academic articles to the "intent" of the authors when they work for
social change. These are two different things.

The possible "intent" of an article about Keat's scientific knowledge,
for example, is simply to illuminate parts of his poetry and probably
provide some biographical information. Say this same person goes to
work for a political campaign -- their work there would be conducted
with a different intent.

See, you seem to forget that most humanities people are just people --
like you. They're not part of this secret evil cabal designed to
brainwash your kids; they don't live every minute to see their evil
plans realized; they aren't intent on capturing American political power
and enforcing their vision of a new society on the world.

Most of them just like reading and writing and teaching. They also like
golf and/or football and/or politics (not always) and/or movies and/or
baseball...and like you, they engage in all sorts of different
activities for different reasons.

> Aren't historical questions and the
>methodology of knowing and knowing well relevant to the public? A specific
>question may or may not be relevant to everyone or anyone but since when is
>that for you to decide?
>

I'm sorry Daniel, but this conversation is getting too freaking stupid
to continue. I never even implied that "I" would be the one to decide
this. I specifically said that -most people- just aren't interested --
that -they- decide all on their own they're not interested. This type
of reading error proceeds specifically from your paranoia.
There are no "hidden" assumptions. I laid them out for you. Try reading.

If you're really interested in reading what I consider to be an example
of a good scholarly book, try this:

Levenson, Michael: _A Genealogy of Modernism_.

Since you're interested in anti-modernist invective, it'll give you some
knowledge of that area too. If you do read it and want to talk about
it, I'm here.

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Tue Sep 30 14:36:35 2003