[1] From: Chris Floyd <cfloyd@carmen.murdoch.edu.au> (119)
Subject: Re: 11.0419 flying meat
[2] From: Alfredo Elejalde <elejalde@pucp.edu.pe> (109)
Subject: Re: 11.0419 flying meat and 11.0420 the trivial and
the arcane
[3] From: Gary Shawver <gshawver@chass.utoronto.ca> (12)
Subject: Re: 11.0420 the trivial and the arcane
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 17:00:41 +0800
From: Chris Floyd <cfloyd@carmen.murdoch.edu.au>
Subject: Re: 11.0419 flying meat
Ray Siemens also raised some highly pertinent points, notably:
>I, too, agree that "'the application of computers to the humanities' should
>not be some insular ivory tower Nero fiddling thingammy." Moreover, while I
>do have sympathies with the U of Toronto graduate student who commented in
>Canada's _Globe and Mail_ newspaper (during the last Modern Language
>Association conference held in Toronto) that as a discipline we are
>deceiving ourselves if we think our work is accessible or even of interest
>to the society-at-large that we may ultimately and ideally hope to address,
>I hope that this is not the case, and do see how HC plays a positive role.
Clearly the esotericism of the nooks and crannies of humanities as well as
the sophistication of some ot its dialogue can be offputting to a popular
audience, but there is more to it. For a start no one would suggest they
dumb down science to make it easy for the layman (well admittedly they do
to a certain extent with popularised presentations, but the theoretical
papers etc. is still in the appropriate languages of the disciplines). The
problem is, every cat and its dog thinks they are entitled to a view about
humanities subjects, which they well are, but there remains a body of
knowledge that has developed over the millennia which requires attentive
scholarship.
It should be kept in mind that humanities is faltering in the race against
social science, particularly economics and psychology, both of which lean
to formulaic notions of society. Thus we have the economic rationalist
regime that evaluates the health of society using financial indicators and
prescriptions. Then there are the psychologies of work, of downsizing, of
unemployment, all involving quantification of the norm as if the suffering
quality of life is inevitable, a curious syndrome to be band aided.
As an able computer programmer with experience spanning 20 years, the thing
that puts me off is its abstract intensity, and furthermore its lack humour
and passion. Thus I will eternally return to humanities because it has
something to say in a creative way. The merging of computing with
humanities is the best thing since sliced bread because of the power of
text processing and communication. E-mail, for example, is a wonderful
medium.
>For me, perhaps the most important thing that HC has to offer in light of
>the very tangible concerns noted by Chris Floyd is the further dissemination
>of the staple of our discipline, of our engagement of it and, consequently,
>of the 'good' contained therein. It is a positive step towards countering
>the "dumbing down of society" and also the affliction of "affluenza" (the
>pursuit of affluence, figured as a disease) that appears to dominate
>Others, with some good reason, may argue that the humanities in fact help
>perpetuate this new word order, good and bad elements alike.
The question of what is the 'good' is very problematic and humanities
understands that. I would go so far as to say that science and social
science does not, but I would be wary of the corollary that taking schools
of humanities out of the equation will necessarily mean ignorance on this
score where there can be such as the philosophy of science etc. which
question fundamental motives. Actually, I would promote such. Nonetheless,
there remains in humanities the episteme of metaphysics that supports the
questioning of the 'good'. Where responsibility for the new world order
could be laid at humanities since the whole of academic studies and
university disciplines derives from it, and also where the modern is a
project of enlightenment, then equally it contains the seeds of its
criticism.
>>Which side of the World Order do you wake up in the morning?
>
>posed in the context that it is, for a humanist (and for HUMANIST) can also
>be recast in terms of the role (active & passive) that the discipline has in
>society. What role does our pursuit have in society? How can we ensure
>that our role is, indeed, a positive one? (And, specifically, for those
>whose interests are served by HUMANIST and HC) how can HC assist in
>fulfilling that positive role?
The most positive role any academic discipline can have is an informative,
educative one. Thus the relationship between academic departments and
school curricula is important, particularly in core cultural/literary
subjects. Furthermore, where the hot subject may be computing, which is
privileged as the up-to-date prerequisite for success in the next
millenium, the push should be to include humanities applications which are
different to games, spreadsheets, etc. This becomes a resource issue where
there are the have and have-not schools/students.
Ultimately, the crunch is resources. I live in a two computer, no car, many
book, a subsistence level income household, and cannot afford an upgrade
to get the extra grunt for the latest web browser. I do not starve, but am
classified poor, despite the richness of my resources and skills. It is all
a question of values, which comes down to the bedrock of what humanities is
about.
A quick aside: today the prime minister of my country, John Howard, sought
to deny the the listing of human rights on the APEC agenda, thus he is
proposing that human rights should not be discussed at a conference about
Asia-Pacific economic cooperation. So, the economic policy measures
discussed at the conference will be administered in our countries as if
social consequences are of secondary importance. How does he get away with
it? Well, the dumbing down factor is crucial. The media writes down to an
elementary reading age. While I would hazard to say that representational
democracy is fundamentally flawed because the vote is too limited given the
complex political agenda, and furthermore, the electorate is largely
uninformed. One may even generally say it is intellectually incapable of
appreciating the multiplicity of factors. So the common denominator rules.
Admittedly, there are checks and balances, leading to the situation where
say a judiciary opposes the executive. Nonetheless, the underpinnings of
such remain in humanities, in Hume, Locke, et al.
At the moment, here in Australia we have a major political debate about
indigenous land rights where two High Court decisions have provoked
legislation that attempts to rationalise contradictory demands, that this
continent was originally inhabited, and Europeans invaded it and stole land
by circumscribing it as their property. The concept of "property" is one
deriving from human principles not science. So, the rationalisers can't
hack it.
A lot of contemporary disjuncture in humanities has involved the reaction
of liberal traditionalists to postmodern theorists, which has been called
such as the "crisis of English" by Peter Widdowson and the "Balkanization
of literary studies" by Harold Bloom. While the traditional suits the
conservatives-in-power, the postmodern is more typically reflected in the
everday even if the average Joe couldn't get through a sentence of Derrida.
Here I am arguing for solidarity based on the principles of humanities
scholarship, against self-destructive factionalism that succours the
divide-and-rule crowd. This means let a hundred blossoms bloom not varnish
dead wood. What is the centre of humanities? Surely the passion and
creativity of the human spirit, not some affluenza tainted token of
material exchange. Spit on it I tell you. The only way to undo the
preoccupation with money is share it around so the value drops, and that
won't please a few, but is perfectly rational humanistically speaking.
Humanist of all countries, unite!
Yours in spirit,
Chris.
_______________________________
Dr Chris Floyd
Phone: +61 8 9339 0490
Fax: +61 8 9385 7443
mailto:cfloyd@carmen.murdoch.edu.au
http://carmen.murdoch.edu.au/~cfloyd
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 05:03:58 -0500
From: Alfredo Elejalde <elejalde@pucp.edu.pe>
Subject: Re: 11.0419 flying meat and 11.0420 the trivial and the arcane
Hello.
Some comments to this conversation (and please be patient with my English
:-)
>Still afflicted by what some of my friends inform me are naive notions of
>the value of traditional humanities study and pursuits... ...I found the
concerns
>raised in by Chris Floyd's posting to be quite pertinent. (R.G. Siemens)
>... I am thinking here of the inherent 'good' in literacy and reading, the
values and
>ideals promoted and sustained (and, perhaps most importantly, questioned)
by
>humanists, and the positive role that humanists ideally should, can, and do
>take in society-at-large... (R.G. Siemens)
It seems to me that Humanism is no longer a view of the universe, an
interest in scientific, technical and cultural issues, but a profession
organized acording to the division of labour and ruled by its constraints.
Now, in this techno age, that the old humanist tradition has to be redefine,
the discussion is about what humanist in general should do, what moral
principles embrace, and the role in the present and the future beyond the
universities, with or without technology. However, professionalization makes
easy for us to forget the sources of the discipline because there are many
humanists dedicated to highly specialized tasks in a totally descentralized
world, with different interests and problems, and each one has the right to
choose his(her) own ethic principles. An agreement becomes not easy at all.
>For me, perhaps the most important thing that HC has to offer in light of
>the very tangible concerns noted by Chris Floyd is the further
dissemination
>of the staple of our discipline, of our engagement of it and, consequently,
>of the 'good' contained therein. (R.G. Siemens)
Renaissence of ethics concerns can lead to positive ways of being and acting
in our societies. It does not mean that we all should do politics, but that
our work can be useful if published, that it is good to write to the
"masses", and that humanists have a role in education (specially distance
education). But the ethic problem goes far beyond what humanism has to
say...
>>The whole new world order as it relates to global employers & electronic
>>money with the high end of Metropolis throttling away on their keyboards
>>whinging about over work, & the rest expected to clean their shoes, wash
>>the car, walk the dog, wipe the babies' bum, ..., be starved, raped &
>>massacred. (Chris Floyd)
>Others, with some good reason, may argue that the humanities in fact help
>perpetuate this new word order, good and bad elements alike.(R.G. Siemens)
Humanism itself can not change neither the economical nor the political
order of the world, but it can serve to discuss political or ethical issues.
Of course discussion may lead some of us to political action... And can also
serve to focus political debates outside the Academy. It is not too
difficult to feel good when our discussions go beyond the academy and we can
see the effects of our work, no matter how specialized it might be. It is
not as easy for us to discuss the issues posted outside the Academy because
they seem to be not related with our work. However, internet communications
allow us to speak without knocking newspapers' doors, and that changes the
way humanists have been in contact with the public during most of this
century. So now it is possible to have a strong commitment with our
professional field and also participate in public debates using
telecommunication technologies.
>posed in the context that it is, for a humanist (and for HUMANIST) can also
>be recast in terms of the role (active & passive) that the discipline has
in
>society. What role does our pursuit have in society? (R.G. Siemens)
There are two ways to understand this question : in terms of what we do (a
neutral description) or what we should do (a commitment). Perhaps it is
better to start from the first question, then discuss the second, and
finally take a position. And never forget that people dedicated to a highly
specialized task is as necessary as people involved in the res publica.
> How can we ensure that our role is, indeed, a positive one? (R.G.
Siemens)
I would like to have an answer... :-)
> (And, specifically, for those whose interests are served by HUMANIST and
>HC) how can HC assist in fulfilling that positive role? (R.G. Siemens)
The major language in Internet is English, but not the only one. Having
HUMANIST debates translated into other languages and published in the WWW
could be a starting point. I realized it is not an easy task because there
is some support needed, but when I look at those fine terminology databases,
at the conceptual systems that allow to understand the position of a
specific concept in the theory it belongs to, I imagine how much knowledge
would be available and how many uses could be done with it.
This way does not sound like the humanism based on exchanging ideas. Maybe
we are to reproduce, preserve and spread the old knowledge using the new
technology, not to create new knowledge. It is curious to me that so many
messages posted to this list talk about how to do something instead of why
to do it. And this is our age: how to make machines work is what consumes
most of our time. We are learning how to print.
>I was particularly frustrated by the former kind because at least with the
>latter one has the sense (taking leaps of faith where required by one's
>ignorance of the maths) that competent persons are at work with tools they
>understand. The former is all promise, all possibility. The toys may work
>exactly as described, but what reasons do we have to think the mechanisms
>provided will do anything at all for the study of the subject material? THE
>AGE OF PROMOTION IS OVER, and if delivery is yet a little ways off, then
>perhaps we should shut up and finish the projects to the point that we have
>something real to say. Comments? (Willard MacCarthy)
After promotion of toys, people are learning how to use them. I am sure,
after that, we will have something to say. And something interesting I
think, because humanists are learning the language of engineering, forgotten
during too much time, and humanity is entering in an age only science
fiction writers dreamed of, and there is still too many social problems
around. A humanist is not only a man that reads and writes philosophy or
literature, but a man who also wants to understand how things work, and how
make them work.
Yours
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Elejalde F.
elejalde@pucp.edu.pe
http://macareo.pucp.edu.pe/~elejalde
--[3]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 08:27:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Gary Shawver <gshawver@chass.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: 11.0420 the trivial and the arcane
>.... THE
>AGE OF PROMOTION IS OVER, and if delivery is yet a little ways off, then
>perhaps we should shut up and finish the projects to the point that we have
>something real to say.
I tend to agree, though I wonder if institutional and practical pressures
might not have some influence in this area. Again, the need to publish or
perish may be showing its influence. How many CHum scholars, who need to
invest considerable time and effort to learn the skills necessary to
understand and effectively use computer tools in addition to doing the
other things required of humanities scholars, have the luxury to finish
lengthy projects to point where there are useful to the humanities in
general?
gary
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humanist Discussion Group
Information at <http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>
<http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/>
=========================================================================