>Paul H. Dillon says:
>
>yet again . . . WE
>where is the WE in the heteroglossia ??
>
>who is WE ? ? ?
>
>i deeply distrust all who speak in the second person plural when they don't
>openly admit their political intent.
fair enough -- i apologize for creating this misperception
it was of course not my intent
>and who, pray tell, will draw the line between "intellectual debate" and
>getting somewhere? ? WE? but, pray tell, please enumerate just who the WE
>is.
i was trying to be polite with "fun with intellectual debate." i
personally have a category system i call the 'insufferable three':
1) the magnesium theorist -- this is from matt groening's school is hell.
the magnesium theorist for groening was a college professor who turned
every discussion at some point to the question of controlling magnesium,
since he who controls magnesium controls the world. i personally am
grateful every day for the periodic table
2) mr/ms look at me -- its all about me, dont you know? this discussion
cannot proceed without at least something by me, and about me. i'm not
talking about using personal data for the sake of relevance, i'm talking
about sheer narcissism, and i think i can usually tell the difference
between the two......
3) phil's kids -- this is from the phil donohue show, that abomination that
started all of the anti-intellectual tv talk show audience bombardment
chic. here is how this works -- phil brought in an expert, say, on
etruscan religious beliefs. this expert, who has worked on this problem
for 30 years, carefully crafts her views and theories. then phil goes into
the audience and finds any number of loud mouths who have been thinking on
this topic for all of 10 minutes and who maybe read something about it once
in usa today, and these loud mouths are given the chance to stand up and
challenge, mock, and ridicule the poor expert who is supposed to take all
of this in good grace. whatever happened to sitting down and listening and
forming an opinion over time?
please note the absence of any us or we here. i take ownership of all that
i say above. you are free to agree or disagree of course with what i say.
i'm just trying to clarify what i said earlier.
>By the way, have you seen the collection that Umberto Eco assembled on
>Sherlock Holmes as a paradigmatic example of Peircean abduction ? I ran
>across it in Borders the other day. It looks interesting
>
it is a classic in the field, and i am indebted to it for, among many other
things, first introducing me to the work of carlo ginzburg. i think that
*the worms and the cheese* would be an outstanding work to critique from a
CHAT perspective
gary
shank@duq.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 01 2001 - 01:01:17 PST