Objectivity debate

[Tonia Moxley]

Rich sent me an email in regards to my comment: "Objectivity doesn't
exist". He made some great points which I won't recount here, except to
sum it up by quoting Chris and thereby ammending the record: "The truth
slips and turns, facts remain the same." Rich points out that objective
facts like "Rob Morrow played the part of Joel Fleishman on the
television show Northern Exposure" can exist. I agree, but any other
qualification of that, like "He did a good job" or "The character was
the focus of the story" are up for argumentation and therefore,
objectivity doesn't exist in the realm of ideas.

And by the way, chas, just because something is in the dictionary
doesn't mean it exists. Look up "Dodo bird".

Tonia

[Chasmal]

>
> And by the way, chas, just because something is in the dictionary
> doesn't mean it exists. Look up "Dodo bird".

hmm..."a stupid person, simpleton"?? Methinks I have sighted a few in
my day! ;)

chas
cand...@lewiston.com

>
> Tonia

[Sourdust]

In article <353695B0...@mail.vt.edu>, Tonia Moxley <tmo...@mail.vt.edu>
writes:

> Rich points out that objective
>facts like "Rob Morrow played the part of Joel Fleishman on the
>television show Northern Exposure" can exist. I agree, but any other
>qualification of that, like "He did a good job" or "The character was
>the focus of the story" are up for argumentation and therefore,
>objectivity doesn't exist in the realm of ideas.

There are objective criteria regarding whether or not anyone does a good job,
however, such as skill and ability. One can either play a musical instrument or
one cannot; one can either reproduce a landscape in acrylics or one cannot.
While these abilities don't relate to the subjective judgments of those who
enjoy listening to or viewing the work of someone who has not practiced their
art, in general, efficiency and talent are rewarded, and ineptness and
stupidity are not. In general. Of course, individuals make their own subjective
aesthetic judgments, and if they enjoy incessant sonic irritants or incoherent
paint splotches, then they enjoy such things. There is, however, no
equivalency. We do not, as a rule, look to the idiotic and inept for
enlightenment, or enjoy the fruits of unskilled, unlearned artisans. There is
certainly a rhetorical argument to be made that all is subjective, but in the
short time we have to appreciate this life and the accomplishments of
extraordinarily gifted artists, the argument pales. No bang for the buck. I
love the fact that my nephew gives me the products of his artistic endeavors,
and I put them on my fridge, but I don't confuse my appreciation of his efforts
with the skilled genius of true artists. He's a hell of a kid, but he's no
Delvaux :)

Regards,

Kevin

[Teverin]

Kevin writes:

>There are objective criteria regarding whether or not anyone does a good job,
>however, such as skill and ability.

But these are determined by the context and goals which the subjects(s) set,
and that lands us in the whole relativity mode that runs afoul of the Absolute
Idealists-- winding us up in the subjective valuation realm again. How "well"
one plays the saxaphone can only be determined by elucidating one's aim:
whether to seduce someone, say, or drive them from the room.

The "is/ought" paradox, operating in different spheres of subjective/objective?

(Speaking/querying as one with a long history of confusion about the Fabulous
Absolute monsters.)

>... look to the idiotic and inept for enlightenment, or enjoy the fruits of
unskilled, >unlearned artisans.

Only insofar as we remain unenlightened or unsophisticated ourselves. We all
operate on the same level of error appropriate to our stage in maturing/growing
(regardless of the objective chronological data), and are all subject to the
limitations of gathering our perceptions and conclusions together with the
physical realities of the organs we find ourselves endowed with. (Whew!... let
me re-read that later and see if I said what I meant.)

> I love the fact that my nephew gives me the products of his artistic
endeavors, and I put them on my fridge, but I don't confuse my appreciation of
his efforts with the skilled genius of true artists.

But you see, there you've defined two different contexts. ("Apples are great
for eating, but there's nothing like oranges for comparison..." er, something
like that.) (And who's to say what a "skilled" artist is, anyw-- okay, okay, I
know what you mean!)

I know I have one of the finest pieces of refrigerator art still in place on my
own fridge (a sheet of computer printout paper, laminated to preserve the
impressionist portrayal of a bright robin on a green hill under a sun that
looks amazingly like the puzzled face of a polar bear), presented to Uncle Mark
by his 5-year-old niece more than ten years ago!

Mark

[Sourdust]

In article <199804180243...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, tev...@aol.com
(Teverin) writes:

>>There are objective criteria regarding whether or not anyone does a good
>>job, however, such as skill and ability.

>But these are determined by the context and goals which the subjects(s) set,

I disagree. They are determined by the amount of time and effort put in to
learning one's craft. This is purely objective. If you don't spend hours a day
of real time practicing and learning, you are necessarily unpracticed and
unlearned.

>and that lands us in the whole relativity mode that runs afoul of the
>Absolute
>Idealists-- winding us up in the subjective valuation realm again. How
>"well"
>one plays the saxaphone can only be determined by elucidating one's aim:
>whether to seduce someone, say, or drive them from the room.

In the case of driving people from the room, one might as easily express gas.
Like the tree falling in the forest, if I squawk all day on my horn, and no one
is around to hear it because it tramples on their good senses, is it worth
anything? Hardly. It is simply bad playing. In my opinion, it only has value in
the infinitely regressive universe of a roomful of mirrors. In any case, my
original statement addressed whether one can play an instrument or not, not how
well one plays. Even so, amateurish and unskilled playing, regardless of intent
or aim, is generally not received as well as highly-skilled, practiced
artistry. Skill and ability as developed through years of hard work cannot be
denied by argument. There is the objective condition of reward. On the whole,
we do not buy CDs or pay money to watch performances of those who have spent no
time learning their craft.

>The "is/ought" paradox, operating in different spheres of
>subjective/objective?
>(Speaking/querying as one with a long history of confusion about the Fabulous
>Absolute monsters.)

Got me on these points, Mark.

>>... look to the idiotic and inept for enlightenment, or enjoy the fruits of
>>unskilled, >unlearned artisans.

>Only insofar as we remain unenlightened or unsophisticated ourselves. We all
>operate on the same level of error appropriate to our stage in
>maturing/growing
>(regardless of the objective chronological data), and are all subject to the
>limitations of gathering our perceptions and conclusions together with the
>physical realities of the organs we find ourselves endowed with. (Whew!...
>let me re-read that later and see if I said what I meant.)

I'm with you, I don't think I grasp this, but I'll take a shot. In responding
to the above sentence, you seem to be saying that if only we were enlightened
enough and sophisticated enough, we would enjoy the products of crappy artists
as much as we enjoy genius. Even if I've totally misread and mischaracterized
this, that thought is at the core of the argument that all is subjective. If
one finds a pile of steaming feces aesthetically appealing, I have no argument
with them. Nor do I really care to argue with them. God bless them, they can
stare at that feces all day. There are such unfortunates. Of course one can say
anything about anything and claim subjectivity. We do share a collective
humanity, however, and to sacrifice our greater ideals of beauty and artistry
on the altar of subjectivity represents a form of intellectualism gone awry.
Put bluntly, we are not so enrapt by NX because it's poorly written, badly
produced, and horribly performed, chock full of pedestrian and trite premises
(just to get back on-topic). We judge it as good; exceptional. Inept,
unskilled, unpracticed hacks cannot so inspire; they cannot convince us that
bad drama poorly portrayed is worthwhile, or that a steaming pile of feces is
aesthetically appealing, even though they believe it to be so, and can argue
that it is so. Subjectively, they are entitled to their feces, I mean, opinion.
Just as I suffer my young nephews their juvenile opinions, and understand and
respect where they are in their development, I allow that some will always use
"subjectivity" to serve as a rationale for inadequacy. It's as old as the
hills. This dodge recently gained currency in the "deconstruction" era, but
thankfully, that sort of anti-intellectual nonsense has gone the way of the
dodo.

>> I love the fact that my nephew gives me the products of his artistic
>>endeavors, and I put them on my fridge, but I don't confuse my appreciation
of
>>his efforts with the skilled genius of true artists.

>But you see, there you've defined two different contexts. ("Apples are great
>for eating, but there's nothing like oranges for comparison..." er, something
>like that.) (And who's to say what a "skilled" artist is, anyw-- okay, okay,
I
>know what you mean!)

Wish I could say the same! :)

All Best,

Kevin

[Duvelle]

Kevin (Sourdust) wrote, in part, and the only part to which I choose to respond
at this time:

>>I disagree. They are determined by the amount of time and effort put in to
learning one's craft. This is purely objective. If you don't spend hours a day
of real time practicing and learning, you are necessarily unpracticed and
unlearned.<<

Might be true if you think all in the artistic world is a matter of
"learning" and "practicing."

Did you wish to offer an *exact* amount of time per diem of "learning and
practicing" after which such actions turn into "objective talent"?

Now, do you really, honestly, truly believe that all artistic talent can be
objectively judged (if there is such a thing) by the amount of time put into
"practicing and learning"?

Just for starters, you wanna try to get in touch with, e.g., Beethoven and
Mozart on that subject?

Think about it...is it really all "practicing and learning"?

Duvelle

[Sourdust]

In article <199804180913...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, duv...@aol.com
(Duvelle) writes:

> Might be true if you think all in the artistic world is a matter of
>"learning" and "practicing."

I neither stated nor implied this.

> Did you wish to offer an *exact* amount of time per diem of "learning and
>practicing" after which such actions turn into "objective talent"?

Perhaps a rereading of my statements is in order. I said nothing about
"objective talent."

> Now, do you really, honestly, truly believe that all artistic talent can be
>objectively judged (if there is such a thing) by the amount of time put into
>"practicing and learning"?

No. I said nothing about "all artistic talent." I said that if one does not
practice and learn, one is unpracticed and unlearned. I don't quite understand
why this would be a point of contention.

> Just for starters, you wanna try to get in touch with, e.g., Beethoven and
>Mozart on that subject?

This point escapes me. My guess is it relates to concepts of your own as
expressed here, which do not relate to the discussion.

> Think about it...is it really all "practicing and learning"?

No, it is not. I neither stated nor implied this. I'd be happy to go back to
talking about NX, rather than carry on with these pointless things. How about
you?

Regards,

Kevin

[Teverin]

Kevin writes:

>We do share a collective humanity, however, and to sacrifice our greater
ideals of >beauty and artistry on the altar of subjectivity represents a form
of intellectualism >gone awry.

There. Thank you. Much of what I was writing was semi-conscious
tongue-in-cheek, trying to give subjectivity the best vantage through an
insistence on relativity. But that can be carried to a rhetorical extreme,
because we ~do~ share a collective human unconsciousness deeply rooted in the
evolution of consciousness itself which informs our value judgments... and DOES
move us to by the well-executed art.

>Subjectively, they are entitled to their feces, I mean, opinion.

LOL, Kevin!

[Tonia Moxley]

Chasmal wrote:

> >
> > And by the way, chas, just because something is in the dictionary
> > doesn't mean it exists. Look up "Dodo bird".
>
> hmm..."a stupid person, simpleton"?? Methinks I have sighted a few in
> my day! ;)

Actually, I meant the actual bird that is now extinct.

Tonia

[Duvelle]

Kevin (Sour...@aol.com) wrote, in part:

>>I'd be happy to go back to talking about NX, rather than carry on with these
pointless things.<<

If it's a pointless subject, then why did you participate?

>> How about you?<<

Fine with me. :)

Duvelle

[Sourdust]

In article <199804200208...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, duv...@aol.com
(Duvelle) writes:

> If it's a pointless subject, then why did you participate?

To contribute to the initial discussion about objectivity, which was not
pointless. The thoughts you expressed in rebuttal to my post did not relate to
the things I said.

>>> How about you?

> Fine with me. :)

Agreed. :)

>Duvelle

Kevin

[Sourdust]

I see from my trusty NX Episode Guide that tomorrow is a rebroadcast of the
last episode of the 3rd season, "Cicely." This was the one that turned my head
and led me to watch intently a show that was basically playing in the
background on local TV late at night while I slaved away at the keyboard. I
think it was the Fox affiliate down here in S Fla that was running the show
around midnight, and, never having seen the show during its initial run (and
considering the broad band of commercial nonsense spewing out from every other
channel), I would put the show on and listen to it while I worked in my little
home studio. I really didn't pay much attention, unless I heard O'Connell
talking. :) I don't remember why I watched this episode from beginning to end,
but I'll never forget what a revelation it was. Just in terms of dramatic
technique, it is exquisite; extraordinary, poetic, beautiful, rare, the likes
of which I had never seen before on television. For all the things that so
insult the senses on TV, here I saw that these folks not only knew what they
were doing, but transcended everything that had come before them, at least as
far as I had ever seen. I don't tape the show, but tomorrow is the exception. I
just have to include in my bedtime prayers the plea for a small miracle, a
temporary display of efficiency on the part of my cable service, so that I can
tape an hour of television without their divine intervention.

Kevin

[a83...@msumusik.mursuky.edu]

> Rich sent me an email in regards to my comment: "Objectivity doesn't
> exist".

I would agree that it doesn't exist, and, in fact, can't exist. Peter Novick
wrote a good book on this (his subject was the quest for objectivity in the
historical profession) called _That Noble Dream_ (the dream in this case being
objectivity).

-Eric

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

[Sourdust]

In article <6hid86$odt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, a83...@msumusik.mursuky.edu
writes:

>I would agree that it doesn't exist, and, in fact, can't exist. Peter Novick
>wrote a good book on this (his subject was the quest for objectivity in the
>historical profession) called _That Noble Dream_ (the dream in this case
>being
> objectivity).

The Australian historian Keith Windschuttle has written a great book that
addresses this subject entitled "The Killing of History." Mr. Windschuttle
presents an intelligent examination of many of the false assumptions behind the
recent trendy theories of subjectivity and revisionism, and explains why there
are no philosophical obstacles to the pursuit of truth and factual knowledge
about the human world.

Kevin

[Dr Gafia]

In article <199804170111...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
sour...@aol.com (Sourdust) writes:

>In article <353695B0...@mail.vt.edu>, Tonia Moxley
><tmo...@mail.vt.edu> writes:
>
>> Rich points out that objective facts like "Rob Morrow played
>> the part of Joel Fleishman on the television show Northern
>> Exposure" can exist. I agree, but any other qualification
>> of that, like "He did a good job" or "The character was the
>> focus of the story" are up for argumentation and therefore,
>> objectivity doesn't exist in the realm of ideas.

(I hate "jumping in" like this, but I have to quibble:
Objectivity _does_ exist in the "realm of ideas"; we are,
amusingly enough, demonstrating this by questioning the idea
of "objective" criticism. It's an oxymoron; "acritical" might
almost be a synonym for "objective". In fact, a strict
dictionary definition has it as "uninfluenced by emotion,
surmise or personal opinion." Criticism is the articulation of
one's likes and dislikes, which of course are subjectively
based—-they are opinions. The fact that you may have a
pretty good reason to hold a particular opinion does not make
the opinion objective or a matter of fact.)

>There are objective criteria regarding whether or not anyone

>does a good job, however, such as skill and ability. One can

>either play a musical instrument or one cannot; one can either
>reproduce a landscape in acrylics or one cannot.

Sorry; no cigar. You have subjectively defined a "good job" as
one that is done by someone with skill and ability (presumably
specifically with respect to the "job" in question--we're both
agreed, I'm sure, that the skill and ability to play a musical
instrument is of no value if the job to be done is the
reproduction of a landscape in acrylics, yes?).

"Ability" in the absolute sense is a criterion for doing the
job at all--if you don't have the "ability" to fold paper
napkins, then you can't do any job at all (much less a "good"
one) of folding paper napkins. Therefore, its applicability,
all but itself, to doing a "good" job [defined how, btw?] is
moot.

Ah, but you didn't just say "ability,", you said "skill and
ability"--right? In effect, to do a "good" job you need the
ability (to do the job at all) _and_ the skill (to do the job
well enough that it will be judged a "good" one, whatever that
may mean in this context). The subjective part of that remains
clear in two areas: (1) the determination of what makes a
"good" job and (2) whether someone with ability, but little or
no skill, might nonetheless be able to do a good job, as thus
defined.

Then too, my friend, surely "skill" is a matter of degree, and
while the level of someone's skill in performing a particular
task may be an objective fact, your ability to determine the
level of that skill is just as clearly subjective. Here's a
concrete example: Because you have an ear that has been trained
to listen to music in the tradition we have inherited mostly
from western Europe (what we would call classical) and
variants which have been introduced to it (producing everything
from jazz to modern pop), you can probably tell the difference
between someone who has taken a few lessons on the oboe and
someone who plays an oboe for the National Symphony. But
unless you also have a passion for Eastern music (from Japan
to India, e.g.), you would just be guessing as to who had
similar skills on the sitar, shamisen or koto. And not being
trained in the nuances of that music, you wouldn't be able to
tell a good performance from a bad one. And the fact that you
are "untrained" in those nuances is absolutely no reflection on
the music in question.

Even if you could, to be truly objective, the criteria, once
adhered to, would ipso facto have to produce "good" jobs even
if we removed you (the subject) from the equation. In the Real
World, people with skill and ability have been known to just
fool around without actually doing the job, occasionally do
_bad_ jobs and often do _passible_ jobs; so right there, the
two criteria are not automatic determinants. Even if you can't
shake yourself free from the notion that skill and ability are
absolute requirements, think of the fable of the Tortoise and
the Hare—-it was the Hare who had the ability and skills
needed to win the race, but he frittered them away because he
was so certain they would win it for him.

There are instances where your "objective" criteria may not
fully apply to the objective real-world situation. What if you
have a classically trained musician going off to "sit in" with
a jazz band, or a rock group, or folk group (including c&w)--is
s/he going to do a "good" job of it merely because s/he has the
ability and skill to play a given instrument classically? What
if an acrylic-wielding artist (who can produce breathtakingly
real landscapes) wants to stretch his/her boundaries beyond
things recognized as Real Art in your philosophy and thus
engages in a little abstract expressionism or simply tries to
convey a landscape with a single brush stroke as an oriental
artistic ethic seeks to do? Is this new effort going to be
"good" because of the skill and ability you would acknowledge?
Or "bad" because you've already dismissed the artform? Either
way, the determination is a subjective one.

I'm sure you have your own unique (subjective) answer to these
questions; I'm not asking you to question their validity,
because they're perfectly valid for you and anyone who shares
your tastes and agrees with your standards; I only urge you to
see that there are other answers to the questions with which
you might not personally agree but which would nonetheless be
equally valid.

>While these abilities don't relate to the subjective judgments
>of those who enjoy listening to or viewing the work of someone
>who has not practiced their art, in general, efficiency and
>talent are rewarded, and ineptness and stupidity are not.

A nice sentiment; unfortunately, only that, a sentiment, not
true. Someday you'll read S. Morgenstern and understand that,
despite what you've been told, Life Isn't Fair. Or Emily
Dickinson, for that matter:

The weak shall triumph over the strong!
Honesty _always_ will save ya!
Love is a thing that can _never_ Go Wrong!
...And I am the Queen of Moravia!

Hey, I'm really _not_ knocking discipline and practice--they
both benefit everyone, not just the "excellent" but the "good"
and the "fair" and the "poor" and arguably even the "bad".
But the overriding factor, I'm afraid, is Talent. Sometimes
even undisciplined and unpracticed Talent. Beethoven and
Mozart were both child prodigies--Mozart probably the best-
case example for what we're talking about here. He ran
rough-shod over the practiced, efficient, able, skilled
performers and composers who were his contemporaries. He was
raised in a "musical household" to be sure, but his talent was
not the result of a great deal of practice; music just "made
sense" to him, and he both outplayed and out-composed many who
had a lifetime of practice behind them. Of course, this is
only truly meaningful to you if you agree with me (share the
same subjective opinion) about Mozart. Skill and ability, in
any event, may help describe competence but do not define
excellence. You appear to have art confused with craft. I'm
not knocking craft, either, it can often be quite artistic—-
but it's not art.

>In general, of course, individuals make their own subjective

>aesthetic judgments, and if they enjoy incessant sonic
>irritants or incoherent paint splotches, then they enjoy such
>things.

Remember how, a few paragraphs back, I was urging you to see
that there are answers you might not personally agree with that
are just as valid as those you might reason out on your own?
I'd like to say that they are _not_ just valid to the clearly
hypothetical person you stipulate above.

Just how to make this clear to you is a problem, I admit.

Ah, yes, you remind me, I _meant_ to tell Tonia that most
people who urge you to have more "objective" opinions (or to
use "objective" criteria or engage in "objective" criticism)
are--albeit probably not realizing it--actually urging you to
substitute their subjective biases for your own.

I am not precisely certain what your subjective biases are, but
you have clearly revealed here that you have them.

To be precise about your biases, I would have to know what you
mean by "incessant sonic irritants": White noise and static?
Grunge? John Phillip Sousa? Jazz of some particular stripe or
the whole genre? Schoenberg and Musik Konkrete? Heavy metal
rock? The finale of most Tchikovsky symphonies? Oh, and
depending on your specific biases, "incoherent paint splotches"
could mean any number of different artists--Pollock, Picaso,
Dali, Klee, Monet, Van Gogh, Renoir, for just six of my own
favorites, but in fact for anyone who paints in any mode that
is not 103.9 percent photographic if I read you correctly.

I'm not disputing your tastes, merely your apparent belief that
you're the only one who has any, or that yours are in some way
Universal.

>There is, however, no equivalency. We do not, as a rule, look

>to the idiotic and inept for enlightenment, or enjoy the
>fruits of unskilled, unlearned artisans.

What do you mean "we", white man? Actually, what you say here
is perfectly sensible, provided only that it is cut off from
what goes before, in which you implicitly define what you
apparently mean by your subjective evaluations of idiotic,
inept, unskilled and unlearned.

>There is certainly a rhetorical argument to be made that all
>is subjective, but in the short time we have to appreciate
>this life and the accomplishments of extraordinarily gifted
>artists, the argument pales. No bang for the buck.

Is that an objective determination? Or a subjective one,
dependent on subscribing to your tastes in the matter? Or
can't you tell the difference?

We are not—-well, I'm not, and I doubt that Tonia is—-saying
that "all is subjective"; she quasi-quoted me and agreed that
there is such a thing as an objective statement of fact, so
now you can stop beating up on _that_ straw man. I _am_
saying (and Tonia may or may not agree with me) that all
_criticism_ (which is opinion) is subjective. The fact that
it is subjective does not mean that it is "unreasoned".

Since we're getting into this: There _are_ objective standards
that define certain forms—-a sonnet is 14 lines, the first
eight of which set the theme, the last six nail it down,
rhyming according to a predetermined scheme and, usually, in
lines of five-foot or iambic pentameter. On the basis of these
standards, it's possible to determine if something is or is not
a sonnet; the danger here lies in getting in over your head and
declaring that, if it's not a sonnet, it is ipso facto not
poetry. Further, the objective definition has very little to
do with how you, personally, would rank the sonnets of Wyatt,
Shakespeare, Surrey, Don Marquis and others--_that_ would be a
subjective determination, based on how and what those sonnets
made you feel, what they offered you in the way of "new" (to
you) insight, &c. The thing is, you or I could probably write
a sonnet that, after a great deal of sweat and work, would
conform perfectly to the definition above; we could set it side
by side one by, oh, say, Wyatt, that did not meet all of the
specifications—-but it simply would not follow that ours was a
"better" sonnet, merely because of that. More technically
correct, yes; better, no. We could >prove<, by citing the
definition, that our sonnet was more technically correct, so
that is an objective matter—-but we couldn't prove that our
technical correctness made it "better".

>I love the fact that my nephew gives me the products of his
>artistic endeavors, and I put them on my fridge, but I don't
>confuse my appreciation of his efforts with the skilled

>genius of true artists. He's a hell of a kid, but he's no
>Delvaux :)

In your opinion, anyway. How does his mother feel about it?
:)

You're probably right on this one, but don't you see that it is
still not saying what you apparently believe it does?

What it says is that You're Getting Better; at least here, you
recognize that you have one (subjective) standard for work you
can appreciate by a young nephew and another (subjective)
standard by which you judge more serious and skilled art. Your
earlier basic error is clearly revealed, namely, you seem to
feel that having a subjective standard would require you to
declare your nephew's work to be in the same category as the
work of a serious artist. But that's simply not the case;
you can "like" them for different reasons. One standard may be
"higher" than the other, but that doesn't make it "more
objective".

I'm breaking off here. I wanted to (a) comment briefly on the
specific difference of opinion that started this and (b) end on
a Lighter Note with something slightly off-topic that I was
reminded of in the course of responding above. So.

(a) I went back and watched the episode and it turns out I
disagree a bit with both of you. The palm-reader doesn't say,
"Ewww, he's going to be (gag, shudder) 'macho'" but she is not
totally indifferent about it, either. She says it in a
questioning way that, to me, says "I don't know how you're
going to feel about this, but this is what I see". These are
not her _words_, but I think the message comes through in
her pauses and inflection: "No, he's going to be . . . quite
a bit macho?" She's not so much make a value judgment of
"macho" as wondering if Maggie is likely to; and Maggie is,
of course, likely to, as we see in what I think of as one of
the three or four funniest scenes in all of NX. So, for the
benefit of those who have not been following the initial
discussion, I think you're both right—-and both wrong.

(b) Talking about your nephew's artistic endeavors reminds me
of something I've wanted to write up, since it is one of the
few instances I've had of amusing an entire room full of
people. Nomenclature is a problem, though--what do I call my
ex-wife's daughter by her new husband? My "ex-kid" doesn't
work, someone. She's my daughter's half-sister, Olivia, and
she's five now, but was four when this happened. In many ways,
Olivia reminds me of my own daughter when she was the same age (she's 30 and
married now)--and I'm almost as delighted with
the former as the latter.

Anyway, this happened back when Olivia was about four. My "ex"
and I are on good terms--she was my best friend when we were
married and remains my good friend. Her husband is just like
me, except younger and taller (which isn't his fault), so I can
see the attraction. Anyway, Olivia was not paying much
attention to the adults around her, she way playing and singing
in the artless tuneless way of small children, when I
interrupted her.

"Olivia," I said.

She looked up, stopped singing to herself to hear what I had to
say to her.

"Olivia," I said, "Don't quit your day job."

I'm sure she didn't understand but she looked delightfully
poutish when everyone laughed.

I assume, if she was upset at me, she's forgotten about it.
Don't know for sure, though; when I get home at nights, if I
think about it, I check under my bed to make certain she hasn't
snuck over and hidden a "sharp-tooth" there . . . .

--rich brown aka DrGafia

[Tonia Moxley]

Sourdust wrote:

> The Australian historian Keith Windschuttle has written a great book that
> addresses this subject entitled "The Killing of History." Mr. Windschuttle
> presents an intelligent examination of many of the false assumptions behind the
> recent trendy theories of subjectivity and revisionism, and explains why there
> are no philosophical obstacles to the pursuit of truth and factual knowledge
> about the human world.
>
> Kevin

Well, I have not read the book, and it's been many years since I studied either
Western Civ or Philosophy, but last I heard, history was the spoils of war. The
winner got to write it. I think it is perhaps better described as "perspective".
When the history is written of the Baptist missionary work in Togo, West Africa,
for example, the content will depend upon the perspective. The Baptists will
probably write that the West Africans are now God-fearing, civilized peoples
because of over 150 years of positive influence. The Native peoples might have a
different history to tell. And "truth", though it can be communal, is never
universal. We, as a community, accept certain truths to be self-evident--that NX
is a wonderful television show that touches us in deep ways. We accept it
communally as "truth" and that "truth" becomes a framework on which we build a
community. That does not make it universal. That does not make it fact, does not
even make it truth outside of its context. I would say that all "truth" and
"history" are contextual at best. My truth is that objectivity is a comforting
fallacy, but that does not mean we don't come together in communities and accept
certain things as "true" within the context of our living together.

It interests me very much, the title of this book, nonetheless. What strikes me
about it is its implication that a search for multiple truths is threatening. It
was always my impression that education expanded the mind and made us askers of
good questions--if it is valuable. I wonder why that kind of intellectual freedom
frightens and enrages so many. It seems, from my personal philosophical
perspective, that many people are simply afraid of questioning--afraid of the fact
that everything is fluid. Or is it more elitist than that, this drive to
preserve, even here in America, simplistic and incomplete versions of history?
When I was in High School, the whole of slavery was reduced to two paragraphs.
Now, whose truth do you think was represented. Or is *that* objective truth?
Personally, I'd rather err on the side of the revisionists.

Tonia

[Sourdust]

In article <199804212156...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, drg...@aol.com
(Dr Gafia) writes:

>Sorry; no cigar. You have subjectively defined a "good job" as
>one that is done by someone with skill and ability (presumably
>specifically with respect to the "job" in question--we're both
>agreed, I'm sure, that the skill and ability to play a musical
>instrument is of no value if the job to be done is the
>reproduction of a landscape in acrylics, yes?).

Observe the opposite. No one "subjectively" defines a "good job" as proved by
what a "bad job" consists of, and in the main, those who are skilled and
practiced do a "good job," and those inept and unlearned do a "bad job." These
things are determined not by subjective opinion, but by real-world, objective
outcomes. An unlearned, unpracticed musician who does a bad job does not get
hired. Learned and skilled musicians do. While one may console oneself that all
is subjective, it would have been more beneficial to study and learn the
instrument if one's desire was to be a musician. Inept doctors and surgeons
kill patients. A bad job of engineering causes disaster in public works. All
the things we do are determined by standards of excellence to which we aspire,
as systemically developed over millennia by humankind, in order to do a "good
job." That's how we got here. In my opinion, such things are so blatantly
obvious, the perpetual striving for excellence, skill, and ability, that
discussions about the validity of "subjectivity" cannot be characterized in any
positive terms. In the end, firm realities exist. We strive for excellence
through learning and practice and dedication, and we compete with and learn
from those who have the same drive. Those who find that learning and skill and
ability are subjective, and find "good" and "bad" subjective are welcome to
compete and produce their "art" in whatever subjective world their ideas
construct for them. There are many intellectual arguments that go round and
round, but the test of their validity resides in the real world. In the real
world, skill and talent and the ability to do a good job succeed. Res ipsa
loquitur. One would be ill-advised to teach a child that his most fleeting
notions of good and bad were equivalent to those standards systemically derived
from the collective experience of humankind. I think I stated originally, there
is no bang for the buck to the argument. Even if one rhetorically constructs a
proof, it is meaningless if it does not stand the test of reality. Karl Marx
constructed rhetorical proofs that many thought were brilliant, yet
revolutionary Marxism led to Stalinism and the slaughter of tens of millions of
innocents, and the repercussions of that ideology are responsible for the
greatest human suffering imaginable. Were the ideas brilliant? What is the
test? The test is empirical evidence, and real-world outcomes, and while
intellectually one can argue subjectivity about "good" and "bad" as applied to
skill and ability, there is not a soul on the planet who lives their life under
such a notion.

>"Ability" in the absolute sense is a criterion for doing the
>job at all--if you don't have the "ability" to fold paper
>napkins, then you can't do any job at all (much less a "good"
>one) of folding paper napkins. Therefore, its applicability,
>all but itself, to doing a "good" job [defined how, btw?] is
>moot.

Ability means more than that. Simple unskilled manipulation is not ability, but
I'll agree for the sake of your proposition.

>Ah, but you didn't just say "ability,", you said "skill and
>ability"--right? In effect, to do a "good" job you need the
>ability (to do the job at all) _and_ the skill (to do the job
>well enough that it will be judged a "good" one, whatever that
>may mean in this context). The subjective part of that remains
>clear in two areas: (1) the determination of what makes a
>"good" job and (2) whether someone with ability, but little or
>no skill, might nonetheless be able to do a good job, as thus
>defined.

I find both premises false. It is not subjective as to what makes a "good" job.
Objective success or failure determines this. (1) If you build a bridge that
collapses due to your ineptness at structural engineering, you failed. You did
a bad job. If you don't learn how to play the clarinet, and spend thousands
recording inept squawking, and not a soul buys your product, you failed. You
did a bad job. (2) The ability to draw lines on a blueprint is not equivalent
to drawing those lines with engineering skill. The ability to expire air into a
clarinet is not equivalent to expiring air into a clarinet with skill. If you
can't do it with skill, you can't do a good job.

>Then too, my friend, surely "skill" is a matter of degree, and
>while the level of someone's skill in performing a particular
>task may be an objective fact, your ability to determine the
>level of that skill is just as clearly subjective. Here's a
>concrete example: Because you have an ear that has been trained
>to listen to music in the tradition we have inherited mostly
>from western Europe (what we would call classical) and
>variants which have been introduced to it (producing everything
>from jazz to modern pop), you can probably tell the difference
>between someone who has taken a few lessons on the oboe and
>someone who plays an oboe for the National Symphony. But
>unless you also have a passion for Eastern music (from Japan
>to India, e.g.), you would just be guessing as to who had
>similar skills on the sitar, shamisen or koto. And not being
>trained in the nuances of that music, you wouldn't be able to
>tell a good performance from a bad one. And the fact that you
>are "untrained" in those nuances is absolutely no reflection on
>the music in question.

Objective in both cases. My training in listening does not matter. The
successes of the individual artists proves the case, not my subjective opinion.
This is important to remember. It is not the unskilled shamisen player who
succeeds, it is the one who practiced and learned his instrument. The shamisen
player strived to meet or exceed the standards of other master shamisen
players. He got a good job in the orchestra by doing a "good job," not a bad
one. All his fellow orchestra members, and all those who pay to hear him agree.
It is only in rhetorical discussion that things can be otherwise.

>Even if you could, to be truly objective, the criteria, once
>adhered to, would ipso facto have to produce "good" jobs even
>if we removed you (the subject) from the equation. In the Real
>World, people with skill and ability have been known to just
>fool around without actually doing the job, occasionally do
>_bad_ jobs and often do _passible_ jobs; so right there, the
>two criteria are not automatic determinants. Even if you can't
>shake yourself free from the notion that skill and ability are
>absolute requirements, think of the fable of the Tortoise and
>the Hare—-it was the Hare who had the ability and skills
>needed to win the race, but he frittered them away because he
>was so certain they would win it for him.

I disagree. It was the tortoise who had the requisite skill and ability to win
the race, not the hare. Put simply, since the tortoise won, it can be no other
way. Speed and quickness were obviously *not* the requirements for victory,
persistence and determination were. If this was not the case, the hare would
have won. It is always helpful to look at what objectively succeeds, rather
than examine what subjectively *should* succeed.

>There are instances where your "objective" criteria may not
>fully apply to the objective real-world situation. What if you
>have a classically trained musician going off to "sit in" with
>a jazz band, or a rock group, or folk group (including c&w)--is
>s/he going to do a "good" job of it merely because s/he has the
>ability and skill to play a given instrument classically?

Whether a master of one form can or cannot outshine masters of another form is
irrelevant.

>What
>if an acrylic-wielding artist (who can produce breathtakingly
>real landscapes) wants to stretch his/her boundaries beyond
>things recognized as Real Art in your philosophy

There is no particular philosophy involved. These observations are based on who
succeeds and who fails. One can easily determine these things. In general, I
assume that those who maintain this "subjectivity" viewpoint don't adhere to a
personal philosophy of choosing the failed and inept to provide them with goods
and services. What would that "philosophy" be called? Failurism? :)

>and thus
>engages in a little abstract expressionism or simply tries to
>convey a landscape with a single brush stroke as an oriental
>artistic ethic seeks to do? Is this new effort going to be
>"good" because of the skill and ability you would acknowledge?
>Or "bad" because you've already dismissed the artform? Either
>way, the determination is a subjective one.

Irrelevant, at least as to my stated remarks. Whether one is skilled at realism
or abstraction has no bearing on the discussion. I am making no argument as to
style. A bad modernist is a bad modernist, a good realist is a good realist.
This misunderstanding cropped up in a previous response by someone else. I
acknowledge subjective opinion, and acknowledge that everyone is entitled to
their own opinion. I have no comment or quarrel as such. The point is that
there are good and bad artists, which I don't really find a substantive
argument against, and that we determine good and bad artists in general by
their skill and talent and ability, to which I don't really find or even expect
a substantive rebuttal. As I stated at the outset, project the opposite, and it
might become more clear.

>I'm sure you have your own unique (subjective) answer to these
>questions; I'm not asking you to question their validity,
>because they're perfectly valid for you and anyone who shares
>your tastes and agrees with your standards;

I don't dispute taste, I acknowledge standards. Taste is subjective. Excellence
is not. The standards relate to excellence. Unless, of course, one wishes to
set other standards that relate to non-excellence. This already exists in a
small subset of the world, and I suppose it always will. I haven't really any
concern for standards of non-excellence.

>I only urge you to
>see that there are other answers to the questions with which
>you might not personally agree but which would nonetheless be
>equally valid.

Ideas that are valid are proved in the real world, otherwise every idiotic and
destructive idea ever devised would be "valid." I have found that this is
somehow a strict standard for some, but as we live and work and play and die in
the real world, and not in a rhetorical fancy, I maintain the following test
for the "validity" of ideas : Do they prove out in the real world? (See Marx)

>>While these abilities don't relate to the subjective judgments
>>of those who enjoy listening to or viewing the work of someone
>>who has not practiced their art, in general, efficiency and
>>talent are rewarded, and ineptness and stupidity are not.

>A nice sentiment; unfortunately, only that, a sentiment, not
>true.

The world would be radically different if this was merely a sentiment, and not
an objective fact.

>Someday you'll read S. Morgenstern and understand that,
>despite what you've been told, Life Isn't Fair. Or Emily
>Dickinson, for that matter:

Emily Dickinson is one of my favorites, and I'm often criticized because she is
perceived as morose and lifeless, but I think her work is transcendent. This is
a matter of taste. I must say, however, that I am losing the thread of your
argument.

>The weak shall triumph over the strong!
> Honesty _always_ will save ya!
>Love is a thing that can _never_ Go Wrong!
> ...And I am the Queen of Moravia!

I suppose.

>Hey, I'm really _not_ knocking discipline and practice--they
>both benefit everyone, not just the "excellent" but the "good"
>and the "fair" and the "poor" and arguably even the "bad".
>But the overriding factor, I'm afraid, is Talent.

Talent has nothing to do with the objective criteria that determine a "good
job" or a "bad job." You can have all the talent in the world, and do a very
"bad job." Nothing is more common than artists with innate talent that don't
work, don't practice, and squander their gift. They are inadequate, considering
the true artists who are born gifted and dedicate their lives to developing
their talent. There seems to be some sort of perception that inadequacy is not
all that bad. Perhaps it isn't all that bad, but it is, if anything,
inadequate, talent or no.

>Sometimes
>even undisciplined and unpracticed Talent. Beethoven and
>Mozart were both child prodigies--Mozart probably the best-
>case example for what we're talking about here.

Precisely. Two that did not squander innate gifts, and did a "good job."

>He ran
>rough-shod over the practiced, efficient, able, skilled
>performers and composers who were his contemporaries. He was
>raised in a "musical household" to be sure, but his talent was
>not the result of a great deal of practice; music just "made
>sense" to him, and he both outplayed and out-composed many who
>had a lifetime of practice behind them.

Myth. Read up on the life of Mozart. Not that this has any relevance to the
discussion of objective standards for excellence.

>Of course, this is
>only truly meaningful to you if you agree with me (share the
>same subjective opinion) about Mozart. Skill and ability, in
>any event, may help describe competence but do not define
>excellence.

In fact, they are necessary components of excellence. This could not be more
clear.

>You appear to have art confused with craft. I'm
>not knocking craft, either, it can often be quite artistic—-
>but it's not art.

I made no comment on what is "art." I am, however, frequently confused :) This
argument is far afield from the premise, and really has nothing to do with
anything. I don't debate taste, art, or any other subjective judgment. I was
very specific, and I had hoped very clear about my opinions. These statements
about "art" do not apply in any way to my opinions on the subject of objective
standards.

>>In general, of course, individuals make their own subjective
>>aesthetic judgments, and if they enjoy incessant sonic
>>irritants or incoherent paint splotches, then they enjoy such
>>things.
>
>Remember how, a few paragraphs back, I was urging you to see
>that there are answers you might not personally agree with that
>are just as valid as those you might reason out on your own?

Again, what makes an opinion valid is not one's own appraisal of that opinion.
Why not let reality determine whether an opinion or idea has any validity? I'll
let my opinions bear that test. My opinion is that the human race strives for
excellence in every field, and there are objective tests for that excellence,
such as reward.

>I'd like to say that they are _not_ just valid to the clearly
>hypothetical person you stipulate above.

>Just how to make this clear to you is a problem, I admit.

Thanks, I think I'm pretty clear on this. More exposition on my part would
merely be reiteration. Thanks very much for your intelligent and thoughtful
comments.

All Best,

Kevin

[Sourdust]

In article <353D33C6...@mail.vt.edu>, Tonia Moxley <tmo...@mail.vt.edu>
writes:

> Well, I have not read the book, and it's been many years since I studied

>either
>Western Civ or Philosophy, but last I heard, history was the spoils of war.
>The
>winner got to write it. I think it is perhaps better described as
>"perspective".

This is certainly the way that the peculiar theory that there are "no facts,
only interpretations" (according to Nietzsche) was falsely promulgated. It
makes sense on the face of it, that the victors recorded events from their
unique "perspective," and that their necessarily biased viewpoints became the
canon of history. Of course, to determine whether this theory is true, one must
test it, as one would test any theory. This is precisely what Mr. Windschuttle
does. As a working historian, his chief concern is not with the abstract
possibility of objective truth, but rather with its achievement -- or failure
-- in specific works of history. He takes specific historical case studies, and
tests the new "historical" theories of revisionism. I cannot recount here the
300 or so pages of the book, but I can say that it is worthwhile reading, a
scholarly test of theories that returns significant data that not only
challenge current popular perceptions of subjective history, but goes a long
way in clarifying just why we are so eager to accept theory without proof. So
many of the things that "make sense" to us upon cursory examination, and that
pass into the collective popular mythology as truth, are complex, intricate
subjects, with no simple conclusions.

>When the history is written of the Baptist missionary work in Togo, West
>Africa,
>for example, the content will depend upon the perspective. The Baptists will
>probably write that the West Africans are now God-fearing, civilized peoples
>because of over 150 years of positive influence. The Native peoples might
>have a
>different history to tell. And "truth", though it can be communal, is never
>universal. We, as a community, accept certain truths to be
>self-evident--that NX
>is a wonderful television show that touches us in deep ways. We accept it
>communally as "truth" and that "truth" becomes a framework on which we build
>a
>community. That does not make it universal. That does not make it fact,
>does not
>even make it truth outside of its context. I would say that all "truth" and
>"history" are contextual at best. My truth is that objectivity is a
>comforting
>fallacy, but that does not mean we don't come together in communities and
>accept
>certain things as "true" within the context of our living together.

True :)

>It interests me very much, the title of this book, nonetheless. What strikes
>me
>about it is its implication that a search for multiple truths is threatening.

The author is anything but threatened by the truth. I admit, it is somewhat of
a lurid title. In fact, the full title is "The Killing of History : How a
Discipline is being Murdered by Literary Critics and Social Theorists". He
does, however, justify this strong rhetoric. There is a body of scholars who
are very committed to the idea that the arts and sciences have taken a very
sorry ideological cast in the past few decades in America, and Mr. Windschuttle
is clearly in that body. His argument, based on empirical data, is somewhat in
the nature of a rebuttal to highly contentious ideas that, while once existing
at the fringe of the academy, are now gospel. He seems to me to be an historian
unafraid to challenge orthodoxy.

>It
>was always my impression that education expanded the mind and made us askers
>of
>good questions--if it is valuable. I wonder why that kind of intellectual
>freedom
>frightens and enrages so many.

Who precisely might this be, those who are frightened and enraged by
intellectual freedom? Without knowing to whom you are referring specifically, I
would say that anyone so disposed is not worth serious consideration.

It seems, from my personal philosophical
>perspective, that many people are simply afraid of questioning--afraid of the
>fact
>that everything is fluid.

I'm not aware of any intellectual or scholar who would be afraid of
questioning, or afraid of any sense of fluidity. I don't pay much mind to what
the intellectually stunted believe.

>Or is it more elitist than that, this drive to
>preserve, even here in America, simplistic and incomplete versions of
>history?
>When I was in High School, the whole of slavery was reduced to two
>paragraphs.
>Now, whose truth do you think was represented. Or is *that* objective
>truth?
>Personally, I'd rather err on the side of the revisionists.

I would suggest that it would be a mistake to make any assessments on the basis
of high school curriculum, particularly if they lead one to buy revisionist
history. A more complete examination would be more beneficial.

>Tonia

Regards,

Kevin

[Duvelle]

I so reply, considering all:

I don't believe you all will resolve the issue. In fact, I damn well know
you won't. Objectivity vs. relativity; relativity vs. objectivity;
semi-objectivity vs. semi-relativity; pseudo-objectivity vs. pseudo-relativity;
fact vs. defamation; lie vs. truth...

Can you ever convince another to live within *your* reality? Perhaps, but is
it worth the effort?

Aren't you happy where you are?

Duvelle

[Edward Sung]

In article <6hid86$odt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, a83...@msumusik.mursuky.edu

wrote:

>> Rich sent me an email in regards to my comment: "Objectivity doesn't
>> exist".
>

>I would agree that it doesn't exist, and, in fact, can't exist. Peter Novick
>wrote a good book on this (his subject was the quest for objectivity in the
>historical profession) called _That Noble Dream_ (the dream in this case being
> objectivity).

If I may pitch in my $.00002....I think the concept of "objectivity" is a
lot like the concept of "infinity" -- they both "exist," but the proof of
their existence depends on a set of rules that are designed to prove their
existence. You can use math to prove the existence of infinity, but then,
math is based on the assumption of the concept of infinity, so what does
that prove? You can create rules to "prove" the existence of whatever
concept you want. So objectivity is really an unsolvable paradox, because
it simultaneously does and does not exist. How else can you make an
objective statement that objectivity doesn't exist? It cannot exist...and
at the same time, it must exist.

On the other hand, it's 2 a.m. and this probably makes more sense to me
than it does to any of you guys. Good night!

--
Edward Sung edwar...@aol.com
---------------------------------------
Keep away from people who belittle your ambitions.
Small people always do that, but the really great
make you feel that you, too, can become great.
-- Mark Twain

[a83...@msumusik.mursuky.edu]

> This is certainly the way that the peculiar theory that there are "no facts,
> only interpretations" (according to Nietzsche) was falsely promulgated.

The "cult of facts" was a popular Victorian notion. The idea was that, if you
could somehow gather enough "facts" together you could write the history of
the world. Of course, you could write a sort of chronicle history doing so
but without interpretation the facts would be pretty meaningless. And for that
matter, even these facts would be the result of subjective interpretation,
since whowever singled them out as historically important did so for a
subjective reason.

A whole school of Victorian historians (called the "scientific history"
school, among other monikers) tried to write such objective history. What they
produced, however, was far from objective and very boring. Most modern
historians have abandoned the notion that we can ever divest ourselves of our
unique perspectives and assumptions and have chosen instead to attempt to be
fair to the source material, rather than arrogantly proclaiming the
objectivity of their work.

> does. As a working historian, his chief concern is not with the abstract
> possibility of objective truth, but rather with its achievement -- or
> failure
> -- in specific works of history.

I would contend that no work of history was ever objective, so I would be
curious to know what historical works he felt "achieved" objectivity. I've
read hundreds of history texts over the years, and I've yet to see one that
was anywhere near objective. For one thing, they were all written from the
perspective of humans, with all those nasty little human assumptions.;-)

If what he is actually doing is critiquing specific works for their fairness
or lack of fairness to their evidence and source material, then that's fine.
Historians still do that every day. But if he is proclaiming that so-and-so
has somehow achieved a truly objective work of history, I would have problems
with his argument.

> many of the things that "make sense" to us upon cursory examination, and
> that
> pass into the collective popular mythology as truth, are complex, intricate
> subjects, with no simple conclusions.

That is certainly true. Part of becoming a historian is learning to appreciate
the infinite complexity of your subjects.

> There is a body of scholars who
> are very committed to the idea that the arts and sciences have taken a very
> sorry ideological cast in the past few decades in America

Yes, there are historians, mostly older ones and political historians, who
argue this. Gertrude Himmelfarb is probably their most vocal advocate. But
their criticisms usually boil down to professional jealousy and resentment as
much as anything else. With the rise in popularity of social history and new
forms of historical criticism, a lot of older political historians have seen
their "piece of the pie" shrink, so to speak. Political history once dominated
the profession, and now it doesn't, and, of course, this makes a lot of
political historians mad.

> the nature of a rebuttal to highly contentious ideas that, while once
> existing
> at the fringe of the academy, are now gospel. He seems to me to be an
> historian
> unafraid to challenge orthodoxy.

It's ironic that he should look at it this way since his view was once the
"orthodoxy." In the history professions orthodoxies come and go. Part of being
a historian is accepting that your ideas will one day inevitably be supplanted
by new ones. You can bet that this guy once knocked an older historian off the
hill, and now a younger generation comes along to knock him off. This is all
part of what C. Vann Woodward calls "gerontophagy"(sp?), the primitive
practice of consuming one's elders.

> of high school curriculum, particularly if they lead one to buy revisionist
> history. A more complete examination would be more beneficial.

All history is revisionist. What do you think, there was once some divine
achetypal, objective history that had everything right that only recently has
been challenged? In fact, historians have always argued with one another and
written differing histories from the beginning. New perspectives are always
popping up. Hell, Thucydides was a revisionist, attacking predominant views of
the Peloponesian Wars with his own analysis. It's nothing new.

[Tonia Moxley]

Duvelle wrote:

This really bothers me--this, "Can't we just agree to disagree" attitude. What
that really means is, I'm just tired of hearing it. Which is fine, but don't try
to squash the debate. How else do we get to know each other than by using our
minds together, explaining ourselves, clarifying and explaining, reasoning and
coming to terms? It's not about synthesis or changing anyone's mind, though that
*can* happen sometimes. It's about fleshing out arguments, riding the wave,
spelling it all out so that we not only tell others what we think and feel, but we
also learn about ourselves in the process. This *is* how we learn about ourselves
and each other--thinking together, sometimes in an adversarial way, but not with
hostility. It's important and relevant and what other reason could their possibly
be for a discussion group, aside from discussion?

Tonia

[Tonia Moxley]

Is it a go? Can it be? Rich, say you're free, my brotha! I'm game if you all
are. I have stuff to do on Saturday and even in the evening, but what about
during the day or something? ~too excited to type~

Tonia

[Tonia Moxley]

Sourdust wrote:

> This is certainly the way that the peculiar theory that there are "no facts,
> only interpretations"

Not facts. Facts, I agree, exist. "Truth" and "objectivity" are what I am leary
of. Again, I quote Chris, "Truth changes, the facts remain the same."

> So

> many of the things that "make sense" to us upon cursory examination, and that
> pass into the collective popular mythology as truth, are complex, intricate
> subjects, with no simple conclusions.

True.

> His argument, based on empirical data, is somewhat in

> the nature of a rebuttal to highly contentious ideas that, while once existing
> at the fringe of the academy, are now gospel. He seems to me to be an historian
> unafraid to challenge orthodoxy.

It's always good to challenge orthodoxy and break the back of ideology.

> Who precisely might this be, those who are frightened and enraged by
> intellectual freedom?

Oh, during my graduate work, I ran into many scholars who couldn't entertain
anything outside of their safe and narrow little world view. Not even ideas from
their colleagues. I find it not only in academia, but also people in general tend
to be afraid of intellectual freedom--on both sides of the debate. I generally
find that most people either try to out-liberal or out-conservative the poeple
around them without questioning. Either that or their unifying cry is, "Why can't
we all just get along?" I think, and this is subjective but based on my own life
observation, that in Amercian society particularly, extremes and what you talk
about as accepting theories without proof, is becoming a problem. We tend to
institutionalize everything, and I'm not for that--believe me. We go to
extremes, looking for the "one" answer to the "one" question. I'm not sure there
is "one" of either. Should we accept everything? No. But I do think broadening
the "cultural discussion" is more than a good idea.

> Without knowing to whom you are referring specifically, I
> would say that anyone so disposed is not worth serious consideration.

I would disagree. I would say that ignoring it is a dangerous option. I see it
all too often--in the media, in politics, in academia, in the general public. I
think it's a dangerous road.

> I'm not aware of any intellectual or scholar who would be afraid of
> questioning, or afraid of any sense of fluidity. I don't pay much mind to what
> the intellectually stunted believe.

And just what are your objective criteria for measuring and declaring the state of
"intellectual stuntedness"?

> I would suggest that it would be a mistake to make any assessments on the basis

> of high school curriculum, particularly if they lead one to buy revisionist
> history. A more complete examination would be more beneficial.
>

Kevin, I love ya, but this statement is so elitist. The vast majority of
Americans only got what they got in High School. Public education should give us
a good working knowledge and accurate picture of our history. It should be the
litmus test. Living in some ivory tower surrounded by the fluffy clouds of
intellectual superiority is *not* the answer.

Tonia

[Sourdust]

In article <353E6B21...@mail.vt.edu>, Tonia Moxley <tmo...@mail.vt.edu>
writes:

>Oh, during my graduate work, I ran into many scholars who couldn't entertain

>anything outside of their safe and narrow little world view. Not even ideas
>from
>their colleagues. I find it not only in academia, but also people in general
>tend
>to be afraid of intellectual freedom--on both sides of the debate. I
>generally
>find that most people either try to out-liberal or out-conservative the
>poeple
>around them without questioning. Either that or their unifying cry is, "Why
>can't
>we all just get along?" I think, and this is subjective but based on my own
>life
>observation, that in Amercian society particularly, extremes and what you
>talk
>about as accepting theories without proof, is becoming a problem. We tend to
>institutionalize everything, and I'm not for that--believe me. We go to
>extremes, looking for the "one" answer to the "one" question. I'm not sure
>there
>is "one" of either. Should we accept everything? No. But I do think
>broadening
>the "cultural discussion" is more than a good idea.

I tend to agree with these observations.

>> Without knowing to whom you are referring specifically, I
>> would say that anyone so disposed is not worth serious consideration.

>I would disagree. I would say that ignoring it is a dangerous option. I see
>it
>all too often--in the media, in politics, in academia, in the general public.
>I
>think it's a dangerous road.

I meant ignoring those who are frightened and enraged by "intellectual
freedom," as you stated in the previous post. I don't see any danger in
ignoring them.

>> I'm not aware of any intellectual or scholar who would be afraid of
>> questioning, or afraid of any sense of fluidity. I don't pay much mind to
>what
>> the intellectually stunted believe.

>And just what are your objective criteria for measuring and declaring the
>state of
>"intellectual stuntedness"?

Off the top of my head, the lack of intellectual rigor, honesty, and
objectivity.

>> I would suggest that it would be a mistake to make any assessments on the
>basis
>> of high school curriculum, particularly if they lead one to buy revisionist
>> history. A more complete examination would be more beneficial.

>Kevin, I love ya, but this statement is so elitist. The vast majority of
>Americans only got what they got in High School.

The point was simply that the range of scholarship in any subject cannot be
covered in any depth in a high school curriculum. That's why universities and
grad schools, etc., exist.

>Public education should
>give us
>a good working knowledge and accurate picture of our history. It should be
>the
>litmus test.

I don't see how this relates to anything. I have no quarrel with a proposition
for excellence in the public schools.

>Living in some ivory tower surrounded by the fluffy clouds of
>intellectual superiority is *not* the answer.

The answer to what? I guess I'm mystified by this turn in the discussion. I
think there is a misunderstanding somewhere, but I guess we covered a good bit
of things.

All Best,

Kevin

[Sourdust]

In article <6hlmpj$i12$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, a83...@msumusik.mursuky.edu
writes:

>The "cult of facts" was a popular Victorian notion. The idea was that, if you
>could somehow gather enough "facts" together you could write the history of
>the world. Of course, you could write a sort of chronicle history doing so
>but without interpretation the facts would be pretty meaningless. And for
>that
>matter, even these facts would be the result of subjective interpretation,
>since whowever singled them out as historically important did so for a
>subjective reason.

Why? To construct biased history? You underestimate scholarship. The falsity to
the entire proposition is the obsession with absolutivity. Any historian, any
human being, brings a personal perspective and bias to any subject. The point
is, so what? True scholars, as opposed to academic ideologues, understand this,
and account for it. As Mr. Windschuttle states, "one of the most common
experiences of historians is that the evidence they find forces them, often
reluctantly, to change the position they originally intended to take."
Historians, contrary to academicians, are not prisoners of subjectivity.

<snip>

>I would contend that no work of history was ever objective, so I would be
>curious to know what historical works he felt "achieved" objectivity. I've
>read hundreds of history texts over the years, and I've yet to see one that
>was anywhere near objective. For one thing, they were all written from the
>perspective of humans, with all those nasty little human assumptions.;-)

See above. If one is arguing for some God-like reference point, one is out of
luck. Bias can always be accounted for, and one can maintain objectivity in
one's pursuit of the truth. Then again, one can see the world through a
colorful prism of political constructs, but things tend to become obscured in
the viewing.

>If what he is actually doing is critiquing specific works for their fairness
>or lack of fairness to their evidence and source material, then that's fine.
>Historians still do that every day. But if he is proclaiming that so-and-so
>has somehow achieved a truly objective work of history, I would have problems
>with his argument.

Perhaps then a reading would be in order.

<snip>

>> There is a body of scholars who
>> are very committed to the idea that the arts and sciences have taken a very
>> sorry ideological cast in the past few decades in America

>Yes, there are historians, mostly older ones and political historians, who
>argue this. Gertrude Himmelfarb is probably their most vocal advocate. But
>their criticisms usually boil down to professional jealousy and resentment as
>much as anything else.

Quite an assessment. I'd be interested in seeing the proof that Gertrude
Himmelfarb is motivated by "professional jealousy and resentment."

<snip>

>All history is revisionist.

Very absolute. Not quite the most astute way to proceed, considering the
subject is the history of humankind, but apparently useful.

>What do you think, there was once some divine
>achetypal, objective history that had everything right that only recently has
>been challenged?

This is, of course, exactly what the "revisionist" supposes is the ideal, and
since there is no such thing, all else must be absolutely "revisionist" and
"subjective." It is like a child finding out there is no Santa Claus, and
concluding that everyone in the world must be evil.

Kevin

[Teverin]

I'm wafting this fiber of the "Richard-McWilliams-package" thread over to this
thread instead, for reasons that will be obvious.

On Thursday, April 16, 1998, Tonia wrote, regarding the above mentioned series
of posts: >Now THIS is a THREAD!<

On Saturday, April 18, 1998, I responded (keeping in mind the
objectivity/subjectivity debate that was already underway): >Now THAT'S an
OBJECTIVE FACT!<

On Tuesday, April 21, 1998, Rich posted this response to my remark: >Sorry,
but it's an opinion and therefore subjective!<

Now, if we define a "thread" (in the Internet/newsgroup context) as "a series
of posts responding to a common theme," then, taken at face value, Tonia's
initial post is indeed a statement of a FACT, or at least a tautology... which
is what I was getting at in my response-- tongue in cheek, since I knew full
well that what she'd ~really~ done was use a rhetorical remark in an idiomatic
manner for the purpose of injecting a subjective opinion: namely, that this was
a GREAT thread! (Tonia, correct me if my revisionist history here is
incorrect!)

So, Rich: did you mean that calling the thread a "thread" was, in [dare I say
it] fact, an opinion, or that calling ~that~ particular thread a THREAD was an
idiomatic subjective ejaculation of adulation? If the latter, I'll concede: I
was being facetious when I tossed out my remark. But if the former, I think
Joel Fleischman would back me up in classifying that event as an objective
observation of correspondence by definition!

And does dragging Fleischman's name and reputation for modern rationalism make
this thread any less off-topic?

Mark (pardon my rambling, please)

[Duvelle]

Tonia wrote in response to my post:

>> This really bothers me--this, "Can't we just agree to disagree" attitude.<<

My subjective comments were made tongue-in-cheek. Sorry, perhaps I could have
been more, uhmm, objectively clear about that. :)

Duvelle

[Tonia]

Teverin wrote:

~snipped because my server won't post with the ratio of new to old text~

> So, Rich: did you mean that calling the thread a "thread" was, in [dare I say
> it] fact, an opinion, or that calling ~that~ particular thread a THREAD was an
> idiomatic subjective ejaculation of adulation? If the latter, I'll concede: I
> was being facetious when I tossed out my remark. But if the former, I think
> Joel Fleischman would back me up in classifying that event as an objective
> observation of correspondence by definition!
>
> And does dragging Fleischman's name and reputation for modern rationalism make
> this thread any less off-topic?
>
> Mark (pardon my rambling, please)

~stifling a laugh~
Now this is how life should be. We argue, we discuss, we debate, and rather than
pull us apart, it brings us closer together. Great post, Mark. It takes an
intelligent person to construct such a silly post. ~grinning all over myself~

Tonia

[Tonia]

 

  Hey Kevin,

Thanks for responding.  Upon rereading my comments, I notice my text could seem a bit reactionary.  Rest assured it's not meant in that way.  I just get passionate about discussion, and I like to use descriptives.  :)  I will clarify for you what I mean and how it relates to our discussion in my own fevered brain.
 
 

>>And just what are your objective criteria for measuring and declaring the
>>state of
>>"intellectual stuntedness"?

>Off the top of my head, the lack of intellectual rigor, honesty, and
>objectivity.

First of all, a note on tone.  I realize this could sound a bit hostile without the proper inflection.  My tone here is light, simply asking a question to illustrate my point about "objective criteria".  It goes above and beyond semantics, I think.  If we think about how each of us would measure "intellectual stuntedness", it would be different for us all.  I think each of us would have different criteria for measuring the existence of "intellectual rigor, honesty, and objectivity".  Unless we sit down for days and weeks to hammer out a consensus and working, agreed upon definition and criteria for determining the existence of each concept.  See what I mean.  The water gets real murky for me.  I just don't see how concepts like these can be pinned down, except in small, contextualized, and highly controlled situations.  As a corollary to that, how then, are they to be used responsibly?

 

>> I would suggest that it would be a mistake to make any assessments on the
>basis
>> of high school curriculum, particularly if they lead one to buy revisionist
>> history. A more complete examination would be more beneficial.

>Kevin, I love ya, but this statement is so elitist.  The vast majority of
>Americans only got what they got in High School.

The point was simply that the range of scholarship in any subject cannot be
covered in any depth in a high school curriculum. That's why universities and
grad schools, etc., exist.

 

Now, see, this frightens me because I tend to have a holistic view of things.  I don't think , by and large, that scholarship has much relevance to what I think of as day to day reality, and I hate that split.  I'd very much like for academia and the world of ideas to be opened up to more of the general population--the "masses" if you will.  The problem I always had in academia was how it isolated and elevated itself.  I think that is detrimental.  And my question would be, what is point of all this "thinking" being done in universities, grad schools, etc, if it serves no purpose but to give us fodder for another book of scholarship that only scholars will read?  I don't like these dichotomies and divisions between intellectuals and "the rest of us".  I think it stunts our human and societal potential--makes community building impossible.  Things don't often exist for me in vaccums.  I tend to think relationally and value that which fosters integration.

 

>Public education should 
   >give us 
   >a good working knowledge and accurate picture of our history.  It should be 
   >the 
   >litmus test. 

   I don't see how this relates to anything. I have no quarrel with a proposition 
   for excellence in the public schools.

See, for me, it is the cruxt of the debate--the most important idea.  I don't think of it as "excellence in education", I think of it in a much broader sense.  Joel has a great line in "Dateline Cicely" when he says, "Once again, a little CNN proves detrimental."  Perhaps I'm just being paranoid, but I tend to think that those who control what information and knowledge is disseminated in public education control the society.  Actually, in my skewed but interesting world view (tipping my hat to Maurice as he describes Chris in this way), I think academic scholarship *should* exist for the purpose of bringing into clearer focus, or revising, if you will, the knowledge of the general society.  This may be extraneous, but I don't think so.  And perhaps I am not explaining myself very well.  It just seems to me that when discussing and thinking about something as important as our shared history, it is a mistake to make a distinction between the knowledge level of academia and the rest of the society.  This also touches a nerve with me because I have taught both at the secondary and the college level.  I see the horrible state of the minds that come in from high schools across the country these days.  It scares me, plain and simple.  Students learn in their undergraduate coursework today what 30 years ago they would have gotten in high school in terms of knowledge and skills that would make them productive, informed members of society.  A Master's degree is worth, roughly, what a Bachelor's would have been worth 30 years ago.  I think it's commonly known as the "dumming down of America".  I think its root cause is this split between the world of intellect and "the rest of us", not to mention the 

 

>Living in some ivory tower surrounded by the fluffy clouds of 
   >intellectual superiority is *not* the answer. 

   The answer to what? I guess I'm mystified by this turn in the discussion. I 
   think there is a misunderstanding somewhere, but I guess we covered a good bit 
   of things.

So, what does all this have to do with objectivity?  Well, at this point, I'm not *exactly* sure, but roughly, I would say that I've gotten off onto a tangential soapbox vaugely related to objectivity or, perhaps more accurately, flowing out of my views on objectivity and my desire for more information, more quality exploration of ideas, particularly on the lower rungs of the educational ladder, instead of what we think of as a "cursory" knowledge to be supplemented later on in "higher education".  Coming from a working class background (see, no objectivity here :-), it bothers me that level of knowledge is dependent upon whether or not one has enough resources to be let into the club.  The "rest of us", in that diagram, have to settle for what someone else calls "objective" truth--or two paragraphs on slavery if we can't afford to go to the University or grad school and learn that slavery had much more of an impact, not just on the past, but also on the present and future.  And that's said without meanness or hostility, only concern for our shared future and a passion for discussion of important ideas.

Now, hit me with your best shot, as Linda Ronstadt would say. :-)

Tonia 

[Tonia]

Duvelle wrote:

LOL! NOw see, I would never have known that unless we had strayed into the
taboo area of subjectivity and revisionist history. I thereby revise and ammend
my previous statements which were, of course, themselves, subjective and up for
debate.

Tonia

[Sourdust]

In article <353F4C93...@mail.vt.edu>, Tonia <tmo...@mail.vt.edu> writes:

>If we think about how each of us would measure "intellectual
>stuntedness", it would be different for us all. I think each of us would have
>different criteria for measuring the existence of "intellectual rigor,
honesty,
>and objectivity". Unless we sit down for days and weeks to hammer out a
>consensus and working, agreed upon definition and criteria for determining the
>existence of each concept. See what I mean. The water gets real murky for
me.
>I just don't see how concepts like these can be pinned down, except in small,
>contextualized, and highly controlled situations. As a corollary to that, how
>then, are they to be used responsibly?

If we had to sit for weeks hammering out consensus and definitions for things
like honesty and rigor, the world would not exist as it does. It's funny, but
the picture of a group of people working together to solve a problem, yet spend
all their time trying to agree on the concept of "honesty" and never address
the original problem, illustrates perfectly the worth of the whole "subjective"
line. What if medical science operated on this sort of principle? Heart
surgeons don't ponder the "subjectivity" of principles and standards over an
open chest cavity. They developed their skills under objective standards of
excellence as arrived at systemically through the collective wisdom and
experience of mankind, and employ them to save lives. There is consensus as to
these standards, because there are real-world consequences. In philosphical
speculation, there are no consequences. All is subjective, and all is possible,
which is fine. It is when these philosophical and rhetorical speculations are
superimposed on the real world of consequence that they show their actual
value. We have criteria and standards for everything. One may question them,
but they do exist. People have personal interpretations of those criteria and
standards that usually relate to their ability. In general, I don't have
difficulty recognizing intellectually lazy, dishonest, highly prejudiced
people. There are pretty good objective criteria. An historian who never reads,
and is completely unaware of the current research of his peers, is lazy. Those
who use cheap tactics, who dismiss historians and scholars simply for the fact
that they chronologically older, and without proof impute dishonerable motives
such as "jealousy" and "resentment" to those scholars who challenge their
world, are dishonest and highly prejudiced.

>> The point was simply that the range of scholarship in any subject cannot be
>> covered in any depth in a high school curriculum. That's why universities
and
>> grad schools, etc., exist.

>Now, see, this frightens me because I tend to have a holistic view of things.
I
>don't think , by and large, that scholarship has much relevance to what I
think
>of as day to day reality, and I hate that split. I'd very much like for
academia
>and the world of ideas to be opened up to more of the general population--the
>"masses" if you will. The problem I always had in academia was how it
isolated
>and elevated itself. I think that is detrimental. And my question would be,
>what is point of all this "thinking" being done in universities, grad schools,
>etc, if it serves no purpose but to give us fodder for another book of
>scholarship that only scholars will read? I don't like these dichotomies and
>divisions between intellectuals and "the rest of us". I think it stunts our
>human and societal potential--makes community building impossible. Things
don't
>often exist for me in vaccums. I tend to think relationally and value that
which
>fosters integration.

I share some of these criticisms, and would only point out that the world of
ideas is wide open to the "masses." I don't blame the institution for the fact
that a large portion of our society would rather spend their time staring at
television, rather than taking out books from the public library and engaging
in a self-devised program of study. Whenever I want to learn about a subject,
this is what I do. There is no isolating, oppressive body preventing anyone
from being educated. Well, except maybe for television :)

>> I don't see how this relates to anything. I have no quarrel with a
proposition
>> for excellence in the public schools.

>See, for me, it is the cruxt of the debate--the most important idea. I don't
>think of it as "excellence in education", I think of it in a much broader
sense.
>Joel has a great line in "Dateline Cicely" when he says, "Once again, a little
>CNN proves detrimental." Perhaps I'm just being paranoid, but I tend to think
>that those who control what information and knowledge is disseminated in
public
>education control the society. Actually, in my skewed but interesting world
view
>(tipping my hat to Maurice as he describes Chris in this way), I think
academic
>scholarship *should* exist for the purpose of bringing into clearer focus, or
>revising, if you will, the knowledge of the general society. This may be
>extraneous, but I don't think so. And perhaps I am not explaining myself very
>well. It just seems to me that when discussing and thinking about something
as
>important as our shared history, it is a mistake to make a distinction between
>the knowledge level of academia and the rest of the society.

The distinction is not made or unmade, it simply exists. If one is interested
in learning the latest empirical evidence and research regarding an
archeological dig in North Africa somewhere, and wishes to further his
understanding, he does not ask the gardener. Nor should the gardener be seen as
deficient because he doesn't have a subscription to Historian's Quarterly. I
ask my gardener about weeds, and he efficiently and authoritatively educates
me. No one human being is worth more than another, but the information and
skills one human being has can be of much greater value, depending upon what
information is needed when. This is not some sort of artificial construct, it
is the real condition of the diversity of human beings.

>This also touches a
>nerve with me because I have taught both at the secondary and the college
level.
>I see the horrible state of the minds that come in from high schools across
the
>country these days. It scares me, plain and simple. Students learn in their
>undergraduate coursework today what 30 years ago they would have gotten in
high
>school in terms of knowledge and skills that would make them productive,
informed
>members of society. A Master's degree is worth, roughly, what a Bachelor's
would
>have been worth 30 years ago. I think it's commonly known as the "dumming
down
>of America".

Decaying standards. I agree. Couldn't agree more. The loss of general education
requirements is a national disgrace, considering the consequences. Many
children, especially the poor, are not even getting a rudimentary education
that might enable them to compete in the American economy. The National
Association of Scholars published a report in 1996 entitled "The Dissolution of
General Education : 1914 - 1993." The findings are devastating.

>I think its root cause is this split between the world of intellect
>and "the rest of us", not to mention the

Not sure what happened to the rest of this sentence, but it is clear that the
causes for this educational disaster are many, and particularly political, but
I don't even want to go there :)

>So, what does all this have to do with objectivity? Well, at this point, I'm
not
>*exactly* sure, but roughly, I would say that I've gotten off onto a
tangential
>soapbox vaugely related to objectivity or, perhaps more accurately, flowing
out
>of my views on objectivity and my desire for more information, more quality
>exploration of ideas, particularly on the lower rungs of the educational
ladder,
>instead of what we think of as a "cursory" knowledge to be supplemented later
on
>in "higher education". Coming from a working class background (see, no
>objectivity here :-), it bothers me that level of knowledge is dependent upon
>whether or not one has enough resources to be let into the club. The "rest of
>us", in that diagram, have to settle for what someone else calls "objective"
>truth--or two paragraphs on slavery if we can't afford to go to the University
or
>grad school and learn that slavery had much more of an impact, not just on the
>past, but also on the present and future. And that's said without meanness or
>hostility, only concern for our shared future and a passion for discussion of
>important ideas.

I share your views about the necessity for broad and quality education, but I
take what I consider a more realistic view of the nature of our humanity. Some
people will succeed, through hard work, innate gifts, luck, etc. Some with
innate gifts who work hard will not. Some dumb and lazy fellows will succeed.
Most will not. On the whole, it is more likely that the dedicated and
hard-working individual has a greater chance at success. It is my belief that
for the most part, success or failure depends upon the individual, not any
institution, not any club. The very sort of idea that somehow the "masses" were
being denied "membership" in higher education led in no small way to the laxity
of standards that now infects the system. In fact, educational standards were
abandoned for political concepts. Subjective political concerns took precedent
over objective educational concerns. The system must either set standards of
excellence that some will necessarily not meet, or abandon standards and water
down the curriculum so that the dumb and lazy fellows can say they went to
college and received an education, the same substandard education of
dumbed-down curricula that the bright and hard-working students are stuck with.
I couldn't disagree more with this principle. As I said, when speculative
philosophies of relativism are applied to the real world, there are real
consequences to real people. If it works out in theory, but not in practice, it
is not only useless, but often detrimental. I believe in the individual, and in
the collective wisdom and experience of mankind, not speculation.

>Now, hit me with your best shot, as Linda Ronstadt would say. :-)

I'm all outta ammo, except to say that I believe that was Pat Benatar :)

Regards,

Kevin

[Tonia Moxley]

Sourdust wrote:

> >Now, hit me with your best shot, as Linda Ronstadt would say. :-)
>
> I'm all outta ammo, except to say that I believe that was Pat Benatar :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Kevin

Well, I checked my cd collection, and you're right. Damn. Thanks, Kevin, for a
great discussion. Are you able to join in any Moosefest games for VA? I'd love
to continue this lively and challenging discussion over a beer.

Tonia

[Tonia Moxley]

Dr Gafia wrote:

> Okay, let's all reach agreement. The date, May 8, we have.

Yes.

> Is Petitbone's in
> Rosslyn our best bet?

Yes, I think with my four maps and my compass, and I find it again. If all else
fails, ~southern drawl~ I have always depended upon the kindness of strange
service station attendants.

> Shall those of us who do not recognize the others yet
> ask for "the Fleischman party" to get to the right group?

I say, AMEN!

> And what times is
> good? Last time it was 6 p.m. but didn't really get going until nearly 7 p.m.
> (my supposedly "great" instructions failed to indicate that the rush hours are
> 4:30 to about 6:30 and many major highways are down to a crawl); shall we say 7
> p.m. and warn everyone to Start Early (and if there is no "Fleischman party"
> when they arrive, create one).

7PM and yes, we can create the Fleishman party.

>
>
> Subject to modification. Anyone who wants instructions on how to get there can
> email me. Be there or be square.
>

Round robin, round robin. Say yes, y'all!

Tonia

[Sourdust]

In article <353FC960...@mail.vt.edu>, Tonia Moxley <tmo...@mail.vt.edu>
writes:

>Well, I checked my cd collection, and you're right. Damn. Thanks, Kevin,

>for a
>great discussion. Are you able to join in any Moosefest games for VA? I'd
>love
>to continue this lively and challenging discussion over a beer.

Thanks for the invite Tonia. I'd also love to be at the Roslyn bash this
summer. As it is, I'm pretty well booked through the end of July. I have a
house in the Catskills that I go to usually in the last two weeks of August
(I'm in So Fla), and I use that time to make the rounds to see friends in the
Northeast (NY, CT, MD). Seeing as how Baltimore is a stone's throw from No Va,
maybe it would be possible. Thanks again. Your opinions and thoughts are very
wise, and in a way inspiring.

All Best

Kevin

[Dr Gafia]

In article <353E6514...@mail.vt.edu>, Tonia Moxley <tmo...@mail.vt.edu>
writes:

>Is it a go? Can it be? Rich, say you're free, my brotha! I'm game if you

Okay, let's all reach agreement. The date, May 8, we have. Is Petitbone's in
Rosslyn our best bet? Shall those of us who do not recognize the others yet
ask for "the Fleischman party" to get to the right group? And what times is

good? Last time it was 6 p.m. but didn't really get going until nearly 7 p.m.
(my supposedly "great" instructions failed to indicate that the rush hours are
4:30 to about 6:30 and many major highways are down to a crawl); shall we say 7
p.m. and warn everyone to Start Early (and if there is no "Fleischman party"
when they arrive, create one).

Subject to modification. Anyone who wants instructions on how to get there can

email me. Be there or be square.

--rich brown a.k.a. DrGafia
rich brown a.k.a. DrG...@aol.com

[Dr Gafia]

In article <353F4C93...@mail.vt.edu>, Tonia
<tmo...@mail.vt.edu> writes:

>[ . . . ] If we think about how each of us would measure

>"intellectual stuntedness", it would be different for us all.
>I think each of us would have different criteria for measuring
>the existence of "intellectual rigor, honesty, and
>objectivity". Unless we sit down for days and weeks to hammer
>out a consensus and working, agreed upon definition and
>criteria for determining the existence of each concept. See
>what I mean. The water gets real murky for me.

You and I are at least talking on the same wavelength; I don't
know is Kevin is "receiving" on it, however. The point you are
making here is essentially the one I have been trying, without
success, to get through to him. Open a dictionary at random
and you'll find that, while words _do_ have precise meanings,
most words have _more than one_ precise meaning, and further,
words also have connotations and implications that apply only
in certain settings. Kevin's problem, at least in part (as I
see it), is that he's using terms that have a clear meaning to
him (some of which are based on definitions you might find in a
dictionary, and some of which obviously are not) but which are
cloudier and not so singular to anyone else.

The worst part of this is Kevin's obviously internal definition
of "objective" and "subjective" that, by inference at least,
has nothing whatsoever to do with any definition to be found in
any dictionary. As best as I can make it out, a "subjective"
opinion appears to mean to him one that straddles the three-
sided border between "arbitrary," "wishful thinking" and
"contrary to reality"; an "objective" opinion, on the other
hand, has as its primary component the fact that it's based on
criteria he regards as factual. (He doesn't seem to blink an
eye when he changes the criteria, so one day the "good" may
mean that which is produced by ability and skill, and the
next it means that which has been successful.)

As I was saying to you, Tonia, there is such a thing as an
objective statement of fact: Rob Morrow played Joel Fleischman
on Northern Exposure. This can be verified by checking all
the credits on all the episodes. "Rob Morrow" might be a
stage name, but that doesn't change the fact that the fellow
whose stage name is "Rob Morrow" did in fact play that part.
If someone cares to argue that the character Joel Fleischman
on Northern Exposure was actually played by Charlmelke
Madsoup, I can point to the credits--an objective and
acknowledged authority--to "prove" that my initial statement
was correct and therefore theirs is wrong (unless they are
saying that Rob Morrow's real name is Charmelke Madsoup; if
that can be established equally objectively [i.e., their
assertion doesn't prove it], then we are _both_ correct.
And if they're just talking through their hat, they're just
talking through their hat & enuff said. I could go a little
further and make a statement that, on its face, might _sound_
like opinion, and yet still remain objective: I could say that
Rob Morrow was the best actor ever to play the role of Joel
Fleishman on Northern Exposure. It would be equally objective
to assert the reverse: Rob Morrow was the worst actor ever to
play the role of Joel Fleischman on Northern Exposure. I mean,
there's no personal opinion being expressed in either--Rob is
the _only_ person to have played the role of Joel Fleischman on
NX, so it follows that he's also the best _and_ worst to do so.
It's only if I say that Rob Morrow is the best actor who could
_ever_ play Joel Fleischman on Northern Exposure that I'm
venturing into the realm of opinion, and no matter how rigorous
the criteria I may have chosen to apply before coming to that
conclusion, the conclusion remains an unproved and untested
personal opinion, which renders it subjective.

--rich brown aka DrGafia

rich brown a.k.a. DrG...@aol.com

[Elizabeth]

drg...@aol.com (Dr Gafia) wrote:

>Okay, let's all reach agreement. The date, May 8, we have. Is Petitbone's in

>Rosslyn our best bet? (some logistics snipped) shall we say 7 p.m.

Umm... I hate to be the diffcult one, but I don't get back into town until the
8th. A quick check of my airline ticket reveals that my flight lands at
National Aiport at 8:30 pm -- so there is little chance I could make it to
Rosslyn before 9:15 pm on the 8th. Also, I will be returning home from having
been on the west coast for nine days, having worked 16 hour days the whole
time. Friday night of that week is just not the best choice for me.

It's not my intention to make the group accommodate *just* me -- but I thought
that Pat and Tonia were both here through the weekend? Maybe there's another
time that would suit all of us? Otherwise, I'll wish you all a fabulous 'fest
without me and will make my best effort to hook up individually with you
out-of-town folks throughout the weekend.

Tonia, you mentioned things to do on Saturday -- what's your schedule look
like? And Pat... you're coming to Rockville, right? What are your plans?
Maybe something Saturday afternoon or evening, or brunch on Sunday?

Anxiously awaiting feedback,
Liz

[Sourdust]

In article <199804241019...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, drg...@aol.com
(Dr Gafia) writes:

>You and I are at least talking on the same wavelength; I don't
>know is Kevin is "receiving" on it, however. The point you are
>making here is essentially the one I have been trying, without
>success, to get through to him.

Frankly, your point was hardly difficult to "receive." It is a very mundane
proposition, frequently dressed up with obscurantism, which apparently some
find attractive. I've heard it countless times. I don't find it in any way
substantive or meaningful.

Regards,

Kevin

[Tonia]

Okay,

I just can't do it on Saturday night. I'm meeting Dorothy Allison at the Astrea
50th Anniversary bash. It's a lesbian thing. Other than that, I can make time.
Somebody else throw out a time and day.

Tonia

[Elizabeth]

silve...@vt.edu wrote:

> I just can't do it on Saturday night.

How about Saturday afternoon?

> It's a lesbian thing.

I use that line all the time when I'm trying to get out of meeting men, but
women? Come on! (just kidding, hon)

>Somebody else throw out a time and day.

Well, I already threw out Friday at 8 pm. (forgive me, it's late and I'm
punchy).

What about lunch on Saturday, May 9?

Liz

[Dr Gafia]

In article <199804230314...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
tev...@aol.com (Teverin) writes:

>I'm wafting this fiber of the "Richard-McWilliams-package"
>thread over to this thread instead, for reasons that will be
>obvious.

>On Thursday, April 16, 1998, Tonia wrote, regarding the above
>mentioned series of posts:

>Now THIS is a THREAD!<

>On Saturday, April 18, 1998, I responded (keeping in mind the
>objectivity/subjectivity debate that was already underway):

.

>Now THAT'S an OBJECTIVE FACT!<
>
>On Tuesday, April 21, 1998, Rich posted this response to my
>remark:

>Sorry, but it's an opinion and therefore subjective!<

>Now, if we define a "thread" (in the Internet/newsgroup
>context) as "a series of posts responding to a common theme,"
>then, taken at face value, Tonia's initial post is indeed a

>statement of a FACT, or at least a tautology...which is what I

>was getting at in my response-- tongue in cheek, since I knew
>full well that what she'd ~really~ done was use a rhetorical
>remark in an idiomatic manner for the purpose of injecting a
>subjective opinion: namely, that this was a GREAT thread!
>(Tonia, correct me if my revisionist history here is
>incorrect!)
>

>So, Rich: did you mean that calling the thread a "thread"
>was, in [dare I say it] fact, an opinion, or that calling
>~that~ particular thread a THREAD was an idiomatic subjective
>ejaculation of adulation? If the latter, I'll concede: I
>was being facetious when I tossed out my remark. But if the
>former, I think Joel Fleischman would back me up in
>classifying that event as an objective observation of
>correspondence by definition!

Excellent points, all of them, but no, we're not in
disagreement. My point was that Tonia didn't say, "This is a
thread,"--she said, "Now THIS is a THREAD!" The former is a
straight-forward unambiguous statement of objective fact, and
had she said just that, we would have little to say except to
agree that she had correctly identified what we, on the
internet, have come to call "threads". But the latter, as
you're well aware, has connotations which make it a statement
of opinion. Without actually using the words "good" or "great"
or "fine," she has said implicitly that she believes the thread
in question is good or great or fine--a subjective value
judgment with which I agreed, btw.

>And does dragging Fleischman's name and reputation for modern
>rationalism make this thread any less off-topic?

No. Rilly nice try, though!

--rich brown a.k.a. DrGafia

rich brown a.k.a. DrG...@aol.com

[Dr Gafia]

In article <6hru0c$jnt$1...@supernews.com>,
l...@mtghorizons.nospam.com (Elizabeth) writes:

>What about lunch on Saturday, May 9?

Actually, Saturday works better for me too. How about 1 p.m.
at Petitbone's?

Oh, and "Moosefests" should probably be saved for the more-or-
less annual event that lasts more than a day and at which NX
personalities might show up in Roslyn, Washington--we're
meeting just for a few hours in Rosslyn, Virginia, to share a
meal and conversation, so we've decided to call them
"Moosefeasts". Thus we are a compliment, not a supplement.

--rich brown aka DrGafia

rich brown a.k.a. DrG...@aol.com

[Tonia Moxley]

Elizabeth wrote:

> I use that line all the time when I'm trying to get out of meeting men, but
> women? Come on! (just kidding, hon)

heh heh...me too.

> Well, I already threw out Friday at 8 pm. (forgive me, it's late and I'm
> punchy).

I will *always* forgive you, darlin'.

>
>
> What about lunch on Saturday, May 9?

I'm game. What's the scoop, rich?

Tonia

[Elizabeth]

drg...@aol.com (Dr Gafia) wrote:

>Oh, and "Moosefests" should probably be saved for the more-or-
>less annual event that lasts more than a day and at which NX
>personalities might show up in Roslyn, Washington--we're
>meeting just for a few hours in Rosslyn, Virginia, to share a
>meal and conversation, so we've decided to call them
>"Moosefeasts".

To each his own. If that's what you and Tonia choose to do, then be my guest.
But the term "Moosefest" was coined here on the newsgroup long before the
annual event in Roslyn, WA and it was defined as "whenever two or more NX fans
are together" (did I get that right, Meg?). So, in honor of all the
Moosefesters that came before me (and especially for Meg, the very cool lady
that first used the word), I remain true to the original term.

Liz

[Bookout]

Elizabeth wrote:

Why, THANKEW, Liz! Actually, the use of the word "Moosefest" was created after
much debate in the Prodigy Northern Exposure Bulletin Board group, which was in
existence about a zillion years ago, in internet time. This particular group of
Mooseketeers (another phrase we coined, but never copyrighted, hee hee)
"discussed" what to call our get-togethers, and Moosefest won. We decided that
anytime any more than two Northern Exposure loving people were in the same place
at the same time it qualified as a Moosefest. There are a number of these
"Original" (or Geezer) Mooseketeers that post on occasion here in alt
tvLand-anybody want to raise their hand and be
counted? Meg 3;->

[nancy g.]

Bookout wrote:

(snippity snippity snip)

> Actually, the use of the word "Moosefest" was created after
> much debate in the Prodigy Northern Exposure Bulletin Board group,
> which was in existence about a zillion years ago, in internet time.

At least. Maybe even more. Truth be told, it was *1993* that I think
the NoEx board hit its peak in membership. Remember, for example, Bunny?
And *her* version of "Letters from Cicely"??? (It was better than the
original!!) I assume she's in grad school by now, if she hasn't dropped out
and started making films already.

We could start a whole thread here, couldn't we, just filled with
"Say, whatever happened to ..." about the Olde Dayes of the No Ex board.
But -- no thanks. Some of those memories have been trebuchet'd DEEP
into the lake, and I really don't think they need to resurface! (grin)

> There are a number of these "Original" (or Geezer) Mooseketeers that
> post on occasion here in alt tvLand

This must be an occasion, then!

Although I do have one thing to say about that "geezer" remark:

Pbtbtbtbtbtbt!!!

> anybody want to raise their hand and be counted?

Nope. Not me. I will, however, raise my hooves and do a great big

ANTLERS UP!!!!!!!!

from one of the originals, also known as:

now: Nancy G (MOOStly just lurking these days)
then: NENancy (one of the attendees at the first Moosefest East/Atlantic City)
soon: Nancy O (and Mr. O does indeed understand my NoEx obsession, so all is cool)
not: Nancy L (who was another of the Geezer Mooseketeers, as well as a quat lover)

Hope this clarifies everything for everyone.

[Dr Gafia]

In article <199804241358...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
sour...@aol.com (Sourdust) writes:

>Frankly, your point was hardly difficult to "receive." It is
>a very mundane proposition, frequently dressed up with
>obscurantism, which apparently some find attractive. I've
>heard it countless times. I don't find it in any way
>substantive or meaningful.

In point of actual fact, Kevin, you still Don't Get It. You
haven't got a clue. This is because you have already made up
your mind about what I "must" mean to say, instead of listening
to what I _do_ say; I don't want you to feel uncomfortable
about it, but virtually everyone observing these exchanges can
see that. Point is, if you listened, even you could figure out
that in actual fact I neither say nor mean what you obviously
appear to think I do. Per the above, you've already exhibited
a childish determination to figuratively stick your fingers in
your ears (because if you listen, you'll have to deal with the
issues), and I'm not backing off (hopeless as holding a one-
sided argument may be) because I'm curious to see if you'll up
the ante and figuratively lay down and hold your breath until
you turn red as a rose petal to Teach Me A Lesson.

What, pray tell, is "obscurantism" supposed to mean? I can't
seem to find it in any of my dictionaries or anything close
enough to it this side of "obscure" to give me much of a clue.
If I were on one of those big tv quiz programs where I was
going to win a million dollars for a right answer and they
asked me to define obscurantism, I'd give them my best guess:
"Obscurantism," I would say to them, just as earnestly as I
could, "is the practice of obscuring issues in philosophical
debate, in effect using sleight of hand to try to distract an
opponent, particularly when they are dangerously close to
discovering that you're in over your head and haven't the least
notion of what you've been babbling on about of late." I would
pause at this point and look them frankly in the eye before
continuing: "Not you, of course. But someone. One ploy an
obscuranticist (i.e., those who practice obscurantism) might
use over and over again is to make up terms of their own--like,
say, 'obscurantism'-- and accused the opponent of engaging in
it. Since it is entirely made up, it has no meaning--the
opposition not only cannot take offense, they cannot protest,
they cannot cite instances where they have consistently engaged
in acts of anti-obscurantism (to disprove the charge) or even
come up with instances of your own obscurantism (to prove your
hypocrisy). Real words, like numbers, have corresponding
opposites, positives and negatives--but what is the 'opposite'
of zero?

I find it amusing, and I think the majority of people here may
too, so do keep it up, even though you're really not fooling
anyone.

One of my writing mottoes, btw: "Eschew obfuscation!"

Now go thou and do likewise, if you can.

rich brown a.k.a. DrG...@aol.com

[Sourdust]

In article <199804280949...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, drg...@aol.com
(Dr Gafia) writes:

>In point of actual fact, Kevin, you still Don't Get It. You
>haven't got a clue.

<much juvenile nastiness snipped>

Indeed. Best of luck.

Regards,

Kevin

[Dr Gafia]

Sorry for the delay; I accidentally "erased" the following
exchange and had to run it down again on Deja News before I
could add my comments—-the topic, perhaps because it contains
some fairly long posts, wasn't on the news group two days
after I made my mistake. Anyway:

>In article <199804212156...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
>drg...@aol.com (Dr Gafia)[that's moi, folks] wrote:
>>Sorry; no cigar. You have subjectively defined a "good job"
>>as one that is done by someone with skill and ability
>>(presumably specifically with respect to the "job" in
>>question--we're both agreed, I'm sure, that the skill and
>>ability to play a musical instrument is of no value if the
>>job to be done is the reproduction of a landscape in
>>acrylics, yes?).

Kevin replied:
>Observe the opposite. No one "subjectively" defines a "good
>job" as proved by what a "bad job" consists of, and in the
>main, those who are skilled and practiced do a "good job," and
>those inept and unlearned do a "bad job." These things are
>determined not by subjective opinion, but by real-world,
>objective outcomes. An unlearned, unpracticed musician who
>does a bad job does not get hired. Learned and skilled
>musicians do.

*sigh* Sorry, Kevin, but you're still "out there," coming on
with your own subjective ideas of good and bad. ANYthing
which involves an evaluation of relative "good" or "bad" is
subjective, since it is a matter of personal opinion; the fact
that you've set arbitrary criteria to make that determination
does _not_ make your opinion "objective". You're spouting
generalities, not objective opinions, and the criteria,
one more time, actually fail to apply across the board in
real-world situations. To wit: In actual fact, an unlearned,
unpracticed musician who does what any would-be employer
regards as an acceptable job would probably get hired; a
learned and skilled musician who _failed_ to do what the would-
be employer regarded as an acceptable (or "good") job would
_not_ get hired.

Even more specifically: At the National Symphony, a few years'
study at the Juliard would not assure a position _but_ would
probably procure at least an audition. While the people in
charge might have standards similar to yours, I _do_ think it
is highly unlikely that it would be their _sole_ criterion; the
years of study at the Juliard _imply_ practice and skill, but I
daresay the National Symphony people would not do any hiring
until they _heard_ the individual perform. Meanwhile, at a
small storefront/nightclub with a reputation for less cerebral
types of music, a band in which most of the people had only
marginal skills _might_ get hired because, say, a lead singer
had a dynamite (if unpracticed and unlearned) voice that would
keep an audience rocking in their seats. Indeed, in situations
like that, you can sometimes have an individual in the band who
is "too good"—-s/he can play some really dynamite riffs but
this could distract from the lead singer >or< make the
otherwise adequate playing of the rest of the band look bad in
comparison.

You keep _saying_ the Real World bears out your opinion, but
you never cite anything specific—-"the Real World" is a
generality. Give me real, specific, verifiable instances of
real people in real (not imaginary or hypothetical) situations.
With regard to the apparently hypothetical situation I was
offering above, I have heard it put forth seriously as a
description of much of Janice Joplin's career--she had a grand
voice, but when her backup band had a great guitarist, he was
too wrapped up in himself to notice he was drowning Janice in
his riffs and making it obvious (since the other players
couldn't keep up with him) that everyone else in the band was
mediocre at best. Joplin didn't get "popular" until she fired
him. I'm really no expert--I like her blues singing but
couldn't name of her backup band or more than two or three of
her best songs if my life depended on it, so I don't know who
the "great" guitarist was supposed to be in the above—perhaps
someone more familiar with her than I am could say.

It's just that, by your "absolutist" criterion, she should have
fired the band and kept the great guitarist. She didn't; so
much for "objective" criteria. Her decision to effectively
keep her band relatively mediocre had the effect of increasing,
rather than decreasing, her own popularity, which in turn
impacted her success. This is a specific citation of something
that happened in the Real World.

>While one may console oneself that all is subjective, it would
>have been more beneficial to study and learn the instrument if
>one's desire was to be a musician.

The way you toss it off there ("While one may console oneself
that all is subjective")—-particularly as a good number of us
have been at great pains to explain that this is _not_ what we
have been saying—-implies...what? Clearly, you have your own
subjective definition [unverified by any dictionary of which I
am aware] of "subjective" and "objective" and have already
decided, in your "words-only-mean-what-I-want-them-to-mean"
universe, that "subjective" means something rather mindless,
like declaring anything that comes into one's head, no matter
how illogical, and going with it--whereas, in your subjective
(not-shared-by-everyone) worldview, only "objective" opinions
are as verifiable as fact. But then, you waffle when your
"facts" are shown to be opinion; you stick your fingers in your
ears, hold your breath, roll around kicking on the floor, or
whatever is necessary avoid confronting the reality that denies
your view.

Are you willing to accept dictionary definitions or do you
"objectively" insist that words mean what _you_ want them to
mean, nothing more, nothing less? This sounds more like
something out of "Lewis Carroll" than Ayn Rand, frankly.

Just in case you're willing:

ob-jec-tive. Adj. 1. Of or pertaining to a material object as
distinguished from a mental concept. 2. Having actual
existence or reality. 3. Uninfluenced by emotion, surmise or
personal opinion, based on observable phenomena. [medical and
grammatical applications deleted as irrelevant to this
discussion] n. 1. Something that actually exists as
distinguished from something thought or felt to exist. [Other
definitions deleted as irrelevant: objective is also a synonym
for "aim" or "goal"; in grammar there is an objective "case",
and in lens making the "objective lens" of a telescope or
microscope is the one which will be closest to the object to be
viewed, none of which applies to our usages.]

Now that we have it defined, would you care to give me your
opinion as to whether things like "good" and "bad" are (1)
mental concepts or (2) material objects? Don't worry, even if
it takes you a while, I'll wait If, after you've taken time to
cogitate, you really wish to maintain that good and bad are
"material objects" rather than "mental concepts," would you be
kind enough to bundle up a few ounces of good and send it to
me? I'll be happy to pay the postage . . . . Thank you very
much.

>Inept doctors and surgeons kill patients. A bad job of
>engineering causes disaster in public works.

Maybe this is where we should get something clarified. When
and if _I_ ever have to go under the knife, I want the surgeon
wielding it to be as absolutely schooled & skilled as humanly
possible. By the same token, when I send my little Chevy Geo
hurtling across a bridge (I pass over three on my way to work)
it is with the sincere hope and trust that the engineers who
built them went to the best engineering schools, were highly
trained there, now have scads & scads of down-in-the-trenches
experience >and< did their jobs well, with the best materials
available. I assure you, I would not have it any other way!

But, first, these things are all skills. Crafts. Sometimes
"an art" but >never< "art" itself. This shows, once again I
think, that you have craft and art confused.

And then, second, as iron-clad as you may think them to be,
they still don't tell the whole truth and even imply a few
things that are not true. "Inept doctors and surgeons kill
patients. A bad job of engineering causes disaster in public
works." Yes, in 99.9 percent of the cases. But competent
doctors and surgeons sometimes kill patients too; the knife
_can_ slip for other reasons.

Okay, now, I'm going to cite some Real World cases – actually
Naming Names – that put the lie to your supposedly objective
declarations.

Have you ever heard of Walter DeMeara a.k.a. "The Great
Impostor"? A factual READER'S DIGEST article, followed by a
movie about his life under that title starring Tony Curtis,
came out sometime in the late '50s/early '60s. It was a true
story. DeMeara was a brilliant young man, a quick study with a
photographic memory who found his way into various professions
without actually going to school to study them; at various
times in his life he was a priest, a teacher, a professor, a
lawyer, a prison warden and--one time only—-he became a doctor
of medicine. He looked people up in professional directories,
discovered what degrees they had and where they had obtained
them and then, pretending to be a University himself (by
printing up a letterhead), he requested that transcripts and
copies of their degrees be sent to him for "verification"; he
would take them and tip in his own name, or whatever name he
intended to operate under, and made a photocopy. During the
Korean conflict, he wound up in the Canadian Navy, serving as a
doctor. Under the guise of teaching triage to the nursing
staff, he got other doctors at the hospital to write up a
kindof "diagnosis simplified" booklet, which he then used
himself; he also read up on the ailments he encountered, enough
so that he could prescribe for them and talk about them with
the other doctors without revealing his ignorance . But then
he got transferred to a Destroyer, where he was the only
doctor, and on that Destroyer's first mission, they found and
brought aboard Korean "boat people" who had been shot up, some
of them pretty badly. DeMeara operated on them all. They
survived. (At the first opportunity thereafter, he "jumped
ship"--and while he repeated some of his other professions as
many as three or four times, he never again tried to work as a
doctor.)

This is also real-world stuff, Kevin--utterly undreamed of in
your philosophy, of course, but real for all of that. I think
it's obvious that even the deluded DeMeara realized how
incompetent he was as a doctor. His brilliance, his skill, and
his general knowledge were all much higher than yours or mine
would have been, but even so "luck" is the primary factor which
kept him from killing one of the people he had to operate on.
I'm certainly not saying I want him to give me a shot, much
less perform an operation on me. What I _am_ saying is that
the fact that what happened, happened, means your statement is
only 99.999 percent and not 100 percent true.

As we're talking "fact" I kindof hate to add that, right at
this moment, there is another movie slowly moving off major
movie screens across the country--this one being one I haven't
seen yet, even though it has won a number of Academy Awards--
which happens to be about one of the best and most competent
feats of engineering of its time, put together under the most
exacting standards and built with nothing but the finest
materials available anywhere--except that, unfortunately, it
sank anyway, at a truly tremendous loss of life. One huge
mother of a boat. Maybe you know which one I mean?

I'm sorry but that _is_ reality. Reality is not a matter of
black or white. Reality is black AND white AND all of the
other colors as well.

>All the things we do are determined by standards of excellence
>to which we aspire, as systemically developed over millennia
>by humankind, in order to do a "good job." That's how we got
>here. In my opinion, such things are so blatantly obvious,
>the perpetual striving for excellence, skill, and ability,
>that discussions about the validity of "subjectivity" cannot
>be characterized in any positive terms.

A part of me wonders what that last sentence would mean if it
were to be translated into English. Another part wonders what
the two things you've juxtaposed have to do with each other.

A third part is trying hard, but failing, not to fall over in
helpless mirth. "All the things we do" did you say? "All the
things we do are determined by standards of excellence to which
we aspire, as systemically developed over millennia by
humankind, in order to do a 'good job.'" That's what I call a
really sweeping generalization. And you think it's an
objective opinion?

Well, really, Kevin, there's something really strange right
here. Prior to this time, I had always thought--well,
"assumed" is the better word--that some of the things we
human beings do--like, oh, say, farting, for example--is
caused by eating the wrong foods or perhaps by eating the right
foods too fast. Something on the order.

Now that I've been enlightened by your comments, however, and
the scales have fallen from my eyes with a resounding clang as
a direct result, the absolute objective nature of your
statement forces me to realize my error. Contrary to what I
have previously believed, my farting is actually something
which is determined by the standards of excellence to which I
aspire, as systemically developed over millennia by humankind,
all to do a 'good job'. The philosophical implications to this
revelation are just staggering, let me tell you.

If my standards of farting have actually been systemically
developing over millennia, does this mean that I fart better
now than any cave man ever did? How can I tell? And by what
standard are present-day, recently constructed farts to be
judged against those used by cavemen and others in their noble
struggle to develop them in a systematic fashion? What
determines the difference between something that is just a
standard, run-of-the-mill fart and a fart that is a "good job"?
The end result, the "success" of the fart itself? If so, how
is that determined in an objective fashion?

With regard to ensuring fart quality, are we talking about
smell or sound? Or a combination of the two? With aroma, how
do we factor in the difference between that "first" telltale
emanation vs. the later, lingering odor? With regard to the
way an individual fart might sound, which is most important in
our push to do a good job—-overall loudness or duration, the
length of time from that first little "buzzing bee" sound that
can barely be detected by others to that final fluttering
blat before it slides into embarrassing silence?

Inquiring but giggling minds want to know.

More later; this is already Too Long.

rich brown a.k.a. DrG...@aol.com

[Teverin]

Rich writes:

>What, pray tell, is "obscurantism" supposed to mean? I can't
>seem to find it in any of my dictionaries or anything close
>enough to it this side of "obscure" to give me much of a clue.
>If I were on one of those big tv quiz programs where I was
>going to win a million dollars for a right answer and they
>asked me to define obscurantism, I'd give them my best guess:
>"Obscurantism," I would say to them, just as earnestly as I
>could, "is the practice of obscuring issues in philosophical
>debate, in effect using sleight of hand to try to distract an

>opponent...

Not a bad guess, Rich, but there is a more specific intent to the word.

In my 1966 Random House Unabridged, "obscurantism" has two definitions:
1) opposition to the increase and spread of knowledge
2) deliberate obscurity or evasion of clarity (which is basically your
definition)

Also defined is "obscurant" (without the "-ist"):
1) a person who strives to prevent the increase and spread of knowledge
2) a person who obscures
3) as an adjective, descriptive of the measures an obscurant will undertake

The first recorded English usage (according to the OED) was in 1834; it seems
to have been derived from an 18th century German usage, derived in turn from
the French ~obscurant~. Its foremost meaning seems always to have been the
intent to prevent enlightenment or knowledge.

So, "obscurantism" isn't a made-up word-- well, anymore than "pancake" or
"moose" or, for that matter, any other word that's been, er... made up.

Not taking sides here in the debate (which I find engaging and would join in
with if I had more time to spend at this keyboard), just tossing in a
dictionary reference so we all keep our noses clean. I don't think either of
you is obscurant: I think you're both engaged in the current debate to promote
an "increase of knowledge." (No comment on your respective successes in that
endeavor!)

Mark

[Dr Gafia]

Okay, now—-I've managed to keep a straight face for several
minutes; I think I can proceed.

Kevin wrote:
>There are many intellectual arguments that go round and round,
>but the test of their validity resides in the real world. In
>the real world, skill and talent and the ability to do a good
>job succeed.

Not 100 percent of the time, they don't. And that's what you
need for objective truth—-truth that remains absolutely true
100 percent of the time, no exceptions. A truth that is only
true under certain conditions is a subjective truth, since it
is a personal matter to determine the extent to which those
conditions may exist.

>Res ipsa loquitur. One would be ill-advised to teach a child
>that his most fleeting notions of good and bad were equivalent
>to those standards systemically derived from the collective
>experience of humankind.

Your Latin goes by me but the rest of this strikes me as a non
sequitur. Or perhaps just plain non-sense.

_Why_ would it be "ill-advised" to teach a child that? What,
pray tell, are "fleeting" notions of good and bad? What makes
a given notion of good or bad "fleeting" or "non-fleeting" and
which is preferable and why? How would one go about teaching a
child that these notions are of equal value to any set of
standards, much less standards that have been "systemically
derived from the experience of humankind"? Is there any
objective reason it should not be done, beyond your assertion?
What, then, are the consequences to be avoided by not doing so?
Who in the real world is "advising" that children be taught
that their most fleeting notions of good and bad were
systemically derived from the experience of humankind? Is it
all right to teach a child that his LEAST fleeting notions of
good and bad is equivalent to those standards systemically
derived from the experience of humankind? Why or why not?
And, btw, what standards are they, anyway? Can you cite just
one, or are they abstractions lost in the fog and obfuscation
of your language? And standards applicable to what, exactly?
Or, as I've believed all along, don't you have any idea?

>Karl Marx constructed rhetorical proofs that many thought were
>brilliant, yet revolutionary Marxism led to Stalinism and the
>slaughter of tens of millions of innocents, and the
>repercussions of that ideology are responsible for the
>greatest human suffering imaginable.

Yes, it was called dialectical materialism; alas, I'm just not
familiar enough with how it works to give it either a decent
defense or a realistic critique. I know it views matter as the
sole subject of change and holds that all change is the product
of constant conflict between opposites; that sounds like
something attempting to be more objective than subjective to
me, but YMMV. However, I'm just not at all certain how the
secondary aspects of the contradictions inherent in those
conflicts can be said to succumb to the primary aspects and be
transformed into an aspect of a new contradiction—-just that
that's what Marx's theory says happens.

But perhaps you'll pardon me if I doubt out loud that you do
understand it or that you've even read it, which I think should
be some sort of minimum requirement if you are going to try to
make people believe your claim that your opinion of it is
"objective". Unless, of course, you're trying to prove that
"objective" is synonymous with "prejudiced"?

Once again you're making sweeping, all-inclusive statements
that imply subjective judgment. No student of history can
doubt that suffering under Stalinism was considerable, but was
it really the "greatest human suffering imaginable"? How did
you, in your objective way, come by this determination? Did
you put it quantitatively and qualitatively side-by-side with
the suffering imposed by the slaughters of Atilla the Hun, the
multitudinous crucifixions and death-as-entertainment which
came to us via the rulers of ancient Rome, the tortures of the
Inquisition? How did you come by the figure you did--the
"slaughter of tens of millions of innocents"--and is there any
historical base for it? Were you limiting your comparison to
Stalin's contemporaries? The Japanese, perhaps, who not only
committed atrocities against armed soldiers but unarmed Chinese
citizens--some of them so bad they are only recently coming to
light. What did Stalin do that compares with the wholesale
murder of millions of Jews and Gypsies by Nazi Germany? Did
Stalin drop atomic bombs on millions of Japanese, snuffing out
the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilian men, women,
school children, toddlers and infants in a flash, leaving
hundreds of thousands of others to suffer the after-effects?
Did he compare to those in the past who had given smallpox-
infested blankets to tribes of Indians and forced them to march
in the snow hundreds of miles from their homes to bleak and
desolate reservations where they and their descendants were
kept by force of arms from returning to lands their
spirituality felt were inhabited by the ghosts of their
ancestors? Did Stalin compare unfavorably with people who came
later, such as those who unleashed the mightiest army on the
face of the Earth against 107 unarmed women and children?

If that's an objective opinion you're spouting about Josef
Stalin, he must've really been a monster, if he and his
ideology created even greater human suffering--which I think
would have to be case if we're going to objectively label it
the "greatest human suffering imaginable". Don't you?

A neat bit of guilt-by-association you try to pull off there,
too. I'm not saying Marx was my ideal human bean, but still I
would say that he is to the things Stalin did what Christ is to
what the Church did during the Inquisition.

I wrote:
>>"Ability" in the absolute sense is a criterion for doing the
>>job at all--if you don't have the "ability" to fold paper
>>napkins, then you can't do any job at all (much less a "good"
>>one) of folding paper napkins. Therefore, its applicability,
>>all but itself, to doing a "good" job [defined how, btw?] is
>>moot.

Kevin replied:
>Ability means more than that. Simple unskilled manipulation
>is not ability, but I'll agree for the sake of your
>proposition.

Ability _can_ mean more than that; it does not _have to_ mean
more than that. In order to _actually_ mean more than that, it
is of course necessary to qualify what "more" you wish it to
mean. You made an absolute statement about "ability" without
qualifying what you meant by "ability"; that's your problem.
While you're trying to figure it out, I will once again note
that "ability" is implicitly necessary in everything we do; in
order to breath, we have to have the "ability" to breath, and
to tie our shoelace, with or without chewing gum at the same
time, likewise. In order to play a musical instrument, you
have to have the "ability" to play a musical instrument—-
whether you are trained or an idiot savant.

Kevin replied to my attempt to say his judgment is involved
in his determination of who is or is not a good (trained)
musician:
>[ . . . ] My training in listening does not matter. The
>successes of the individual artists proves the case, not my
>subjective opinion. This is important to remember. It is not
>the unskilled shamisen player who succeeds, it is the one who
>practiced and learned his instrument. The shamisen player
>strived to meet or exceed the standards of other master
>shamisen players. He got a good job in the orchestra by doing
>a "good job," not a bad one. All his fellow orchestra
>members, and all those who pay to hear him agree.

>It is only in rhetorical discussion that things can be
>otherwise.

Okay. As I've been saying, I'm perfectly willing to "get real"
if you are likewise willing. I have been, all along, tossing
in not just the hypothetical but the actual and literal, naming
the names of real known people and citing real verifiable
situations. You make noises about the real world proving your
propositions, but you never do cite the names of real people in
real situations; in your case it is, thus far anyway, all
hypothetical and rhetorical conjecture; you otherwise hide your
eyes and proclaim your inability to "see" any point of view
other than your own.

8-([=^>}

How real is George Harrison? One of the Beatles. If you want
to make "success" part of the equation, I don't think you can
come up with too many who are "more" successful than George.
A premier rock musician. Extremely talented and very well
compensated for his playing. Does he meet your exacting
specifications? Real enough, successful enough, for your
paradigm? I hope so.

Just a little problem. Some years back, when the Beatles were
still touring, exploring, searching, taking LSD, looking for
personal Enlightenment, he met someone who could have been his
eastern Indian counterpart, Ravi Shankar. Ravi Shankar is a
well-known successful classical Sitar player. He taught George
Harrison everything George knows about the Sitar, which isn't
much. Still, George is a talented guitar player, and the Sitar
is a string instrument; he learned a few "licks". Not well,
not terribly, not anything to write home about; the equivalent,
really, of George having taught him of few bars of flamenco, a
little jazz riff, maybe a blues, nothing for which a rock band
might decide to hire him. But, upon George's return to the UK,
he promptly played the Sitar on the next two or three Beatles
albums, which sold the usual X million copies.

The Beatles--their records, anyway--were at one point the UK's
top export. This is something worth knowing, because if you
ever get a chance to go through India, you want to be sure you
have your "psychedelic" period Beatles records with you, so
you can have all of Ravi Shankar's fans falling over in
laughter or holding their ears in pain when they hear George
"play" the Sitar.

What we have here is a successful musician who plays another
instrument badly, by the standards of his classical teacher,
who continues to play it badly for an audience which, for the
most part, would not recognize classical Sitar playing if it
came up and bit them in the lower pectoral region, so as a
result, this musician becomes even more of a success. Real-
world happening, whether you like it or not.

Did your shamisen player, in the hypothetical situation you
outlined and I quoted above, happen to have a name?

No, I thought not.

I wrote"
>>Even if you could, to be truly objective, the criteria, once
>>adhered to, would ipso facto have to produce "good" jobs even
>>if we removed you (the subject) from the equation. In the
>>Real World, people with skill and ability have been known to
>>just fool around without actually doing the job, occasionally
>>do _bad_ jobs and often do _passible_ jobs; so right there,
>>the two criteria are not automatic determinants. Even if you
>>can't shake yourself free from the notion that skill and
>>ability are absolute requirements, think of the fable of the
>>Tortoise and the Hare—-it was the Hare who had the ability
>>and skills needed to win the race, but he frittered them away
>>because he was so certain they would win it for him.

Kevin contradicts:
>I disagree. It was the tortoise who had the requisite skill
>and ability to win the race, not the hare. Put simply, since
>the tortoise won, it can be no other way. Speed and quickness
>were obviously *not* the requirements for victory, persistence
>and determination were. If this was not the case, the hare
>would have won. It is always helpful to look at what
>objectively succeeds, rather than examine what subjectively
>*should* succeed.

What utter nonsense. The point of the fable is _not_ to say
that persistence and determination will invariably succeed over
speed and quickness in a foot race; speed and quickness _will_
win that race every time out over those who are persistent and
determined, but ONLY IF the individual who is speedy and quick
is not foolhardy enough to squander the advantage. IF the
advantage of speed and quickness are squandered, THEN
persistence and determination have a chance—-not otherwise.

I went on:
>>What if an acrylic-wielding artist (who can produce
>>breathtakingly real landscapes) wants to stretch his/her
>>boundaries beyond things recognized as Real Art in your
>>philosophy

Kevin interrupted to point out:
>There is no particular philosophy involved. These
>observations are based on who succeeds and who fails. One can
>easily determine these things. In general, I assume that
>those who maintain this "subjectivity" viewpoint don't adhere
>to a personal philosophy of choosing the failed and inept to
>provide them with goods and services. What would that
>"philosophy" be called? Failurism? :)

Maybe. However, now that you've decided skill and ability are
not enough, that you have to add in the factor of success to
determine the difference between the "good" and the "bad,"
you're getting closer to Pragmatism.

I went on:
>>[ . . . ] and thus engages in a little abstract
>>expressionism or simply tries to convey a landscape with a
>>single brush stroke as an oriental artistic ethic seeks to
>>do? Is this new effort going to be "good" because of the
>>skill and ability you would acknowledge? Or "bad" because
>>you've already dismissed the artform? Either way, the
>>determination is a subjective one.

>Irrelevant, at least as to my stated remarks. Whether one is
>skilled at realism or abstraction has no bearing on the
>discussion. I am making no argument as to style. A bad
>modernist is a bad modernist, a good realist is a good
>realist. This misunderstanding cropped up in a previous
>response by someone else. I acknowledge subjective opinion,
>and acknowledge that everyone is entitled to their own
>opinion. I have no comment or quarrel as such. The point is
>that there are good and bad artists, which I don't really find
>a substantive argument against, and that we determine good and
>bad artists in general by their skill and talent and ability,
>to which I don't really find or even expect a substantive
>rebuttal. As I stated at the outset, project the opposite,
>and it might become more clear.

Alas, I'm afraid your logic still escapes me. However, while
you're hoisting yourself by your own petard, I might as well
let you do a thorough job of it.

You went on:
>I don't dispute taste, I acknowledge standards. Taste is
>subjective. Excellence is not. The standards relate to
>excellence. Unless, of course, one wishes to set other
>standards that relate to non-excellence. This already exists
>in a small subset of the world, and I suppose it always will.
>I haven't really any concern for standards of non-excellence.

You say you determine good or bad artists on the basis of
whether they succeed or not. But what causes them to succeed?
Why, nothing more than the opinions of some people that it's
good--according to _their_ subjective tastes. Popularity is a
requirement for any given artistic achievement to be considered
"successful". The tastes involved are definitely subjective,
because they are subject to change; what is popular and
therefore successful at one point in time may not be in another
point in time.

You are saying, in effect, that the _collective_ opinion is
objective--and it's not. The way you have outlined it above,
to tell if something is good, you need only find out if other
people, or a significant number of other people, think it is
good.

But of course it's not! First, a lot of stuff that's popular
is garbage compared to some stuff that's not so popular; a lot
of artistic forms have found that the more popular something
is, the closer it is to the lowest common denominator.

Objective good or objective excellence must be unchanging. And
if popularity = good/excellence, what happens when popularity
wanes? Best-case example: William Shakespeare. Very popular
and successful playwright, indeed the Neal Simon of his time--he
owned property and his poetry even sold out. He made a truly
excellent living at his chosen endeavor. The consensus about
his work today is that it is some of the finest writing to be
had in the English language--with a significant number holding
that the Bard of Avon may be _The_ finest writer in the
language.

But a few years after his death, Shakespeare was all but
forgotten, dismissed by the literary and hoi polloi alike as a
hack who was a crowd-pleaser, with his "kings who acted like
fools and fools who acted like kings". It wasn't until around
the middle of the last century that he started to get popular
again.

(Actually, I think he made a previous "comeback"--which means
his goodness really _has_ waxed and waned. I'm just not enough
of a bardoliter to be able to cite it specifically.)

I said:
>>I only urge you to see that there are other answers to the
>>questions with which you might not personally agree but which
>>would nonetheless be equally valid.

You replied:
>Ideas that are valid are proved in the real world, otherwise
>every idiotic and destructive idea ever devised would be
>"valid." I have found that this is somehow a strict standard
>for some, but as we live and work and play and die in the real
>world, and not in a rhetorical fancy, I maintain the following
>test for the "validity" of ideas: Do they prove out in the
>real world? (See Marx)

You keep knocking the stuffing out of that straw man. There
are times when people discuss their rhetorical fancies, and
ideas which are valid within the context of rhetorical fancies
may be discussed at that time without any need of your litmus
test. It is possible that the idea _might_ also be valid in
the real world, it is also possible that the idea might not,
but that's surely irrelevant if the discussion is entirely
rhetorical. Your litmus test is needed only if you are trying
out an idea developed in rhetorical discussion in the real
world which has never, to your knowledge, been tested in the
real world. But the only person I've seen here attempting to
apply rhetorical ideas to the real world without testing them
first is...ah...you.

rich brown a.k.a. DrG...@aol.com

[Dr Gafia]

In article <199804300009...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, tev...@aol.com
(Teverin) writes:

>Not taking sides here in the debate (which I find engaging and would join in
>with if I had more time to spend at this keyboard), just tossing in a
>dictionary reference so we all keep our noses clean. I don't think either of
>you is obscurant: I think you're both engaged in the current debate to
>promote
>an "increase of knowledge." (No comment on your respective successes in that
>endeavor!)

Okay. My "big" Wester's (OED sized but picked up at a garage sale for $4) and
my Webster's Collegiate lacks these definitions.

I agree that neither Kevin or I are being obscurant--or at least not
intentionally, as implied in the definition you've given.

rich brown a.k.a. DrG...@aol.com

[Sourdust]

In article <199805021239...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, drg...@aol.com
(Dr Gafia) writes:

> A truth that is only
>true under certain conditions is a subjective truth, since it
>is a personal matter to determine the extent to which those
>conditions may exist.

<a veritable ocean of sophomoric, thumb-sucking blather snipped>

My congratulations. This is actually the largest pantload of juvenile twaddle I
have seen in quite some time. While life is too short to actually have to
ingest such feeble tripe, it's always interesting to recall those adolescent
concepts that so infatuate the average high school boy. You may not, however,
have any more of my time on this. It is done. You really do need to get over
it. I would suggest that perhaps some fresh air and sunshine would be more
beneficial. Maybe a good round of vigorous exercise, and perhaps a vitamin pill
and some orange juice. Works wonders for the old attitude too. To waste so much
of one's life typing out such laughably trite and self-absorbed pedestrian
nonsense is, well, it's just not healthy, darn it! There is a glorious world of
people outside that nasty, feverish little universe. Open your mind. Get out in
the neighborhood, get out and play with some friends. Seize the day! And stop
being so cranky :)

All Best

K

[Tonia Moxley]

Sourdust wrote:

> In article <199805021239...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, drg...@aol.com
> (Dr Gafia) writes:
>

> > A truth that is only
> >true under certain conditions is a subjective truth, since it
> >is a personal matter to determine the extent to which those
> >conditions may exist.
>

> <a veritable ocean of sophomoric, thumb-sucking blather snipped>
>
> My congratulations. This is actually the largest pantload of juvenile twaddle I
> have seen in quite some time. While life is too short to actually have to
> ingest such feeble tripe, it's always interesting to recall those adolescent
> concepts that so infatuate the average high school boy. You may not, however,
> have any more of my time on this. It is done. You really do need to get over
> it. I would suggest that perhaps some fresh air and sunshine would be more
> beneficial. Maybe a good round of vigorous exercise, and perhaps a vitamin pill
> and some orange juice. Works wonders for the old attitude too. To waste so much
> of one's life typing out such laughably trite and self-absorbed pedestrian
> nonsense is, well, it's just not healthy, darn it! There is a glorious world of
> people outside that nasty, feverish little universe. Open your mind. Get out in
> the neighborhood, get out and play with some friends. Seize the day! And stop
> being so cranky :)
>
> All Best
>
> K

I must say, boys, I'm rather enjoying this. "thumb-sucking"? "pantload of
twaddle"? Wow. Serve and Volley....this is FUUUUUN!

Tonia

[Dr Gafia]

In article <199805021832...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, sour...@aol.com
(Sourdust) writes:

>My congratulations. This is actually the largest pantload of juvenile twaddle
>I
>have seen in quite some time. While life is too short to actually have to
>ingest such feeble tripe, it's always interesting to recall those adolescent
>concepts that so infatuate the average high school boy. You may not, however,
>have any more of my time on this. It is done. You really do need to get over
>it. I would suggest that perhaps some fresh air and sunshine would be more
>beneficial. Maybe a good round of vigorous exercise, and perhaps a vitamin
>pill
>and some orange juice. Works wonders for the old attitude too. To waste so
>much
>of one's life typing out such laughably trite and self-absorbed pedestrian
>nonsense is, well, it's just not healthy, darn it! There is a glorious world
>of
>people outside that nasty, feverish little universe. Open your mind. Get out
>in
>the neighborhood, get out and play with some friends. Seize the day! And stop
>being so cranky :)

I see the ideas are just too much for you, as is always the case when the
argument is ad hominum.

C'est la cotton pickin' vie, as they say in the south of France.

rich brown a.k.a. DrG...@aol.com

[Dr Gafia]

In article <354E3BB6...@mail.vt.edu>, Tonia Moxley <tmo...@mail.vt.edu>
writes:

> I must say, boys, I'm rather enjoying this. "thumb-sucking"? "pantload of

>twaddle"? Wow. Serve and Volley....this is FUUUUUN!

Yeah, but just wait 'til you see me smear jam all over his face!
rich brown a.k.a. DrG...@aol.com

[Sourdust]

In article <199804241019...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, drg...@aol.com
(Dr Gafia) writes:

>I see the ideas are just too much for you, as is always the case when the
>argument is ad hominum.

Come on, Rich. "Ad hominum" (sic)? Me? I was having fun. I endured your
sneering and name-calling with civility and respect, and tolerated your blather
without characterization, until I could endure it no more. In fact, if your
drivel had any real meaning or intellectual weight, I doubt I would have
tolerated your nastiness as long as I did. If you don't wish to be exposed to
honest appraisal, don't assume that your arrogance is a substitute for thought,
or that anonymity allows a free dose of ego-benefitting venom spewed at
another. It is indicative and typical that you sneered and spit and scorned for
days, only to cry foul when confronted with your target's reaction to that
scorn. I didn't appreciate your infantile derision, but I was willing to carry
on debate, to a point. I don't stifle children's questions, I am very patient.
But I don't cut putative adults the same slack. I give them a second, then a
third chance, then I tell them the hard facts. If you had a sense of
intellectual rigor, devoid of all that ego-inflating condescension, we might
have reached an accord to some degree. It is the best possible outcome of
debate, one that is the objective of most everyone I know. There is a good
lesson in this for you : Speak like a man, with respect, and you will be
treated in kind. Speak like a sneering fool, and you will be treated in kind.
As to "ad hominum" (sic), "Doctor" Gafia, heal thyself.

Regards,

Kevin

[Dr Gafia]

*sigh*

"Kevin" a.k.a. Sourdust writes:
>In fact, if your drivel had any real meaning or intellectual
>weight, I doubt I would have tolerated your nastiness as long
>as I did."

I think you've just "exposed" yourself. Zip up.

Or is it possible, Kevin, that English is not your native
tongue? I _do_ want to give you the benefit of the doubt.

You're saying, in effect, that you put up with my "nastiness"
as long as you did because my argument lacked "real meaning" or
"intellectual weight"? That is how the meaning of the sentence
parses out.

It's true, Kevin, I did and do sneer at your intellectual
pretension, but I'm perfectly willing to let what I have said
and what you have said be placed side by side and judged. This
is the internet, after all, and anyone with any intellectual
rigor can and will trace this subject title via Deja News and
thus will see everything that you have said and everything that
I have said.

Among other things, they will find that, far from engaging in
mere name-calling, Kevin, I quoted your statements and
demonstrated that they were either unsubstantiated assertion or
semantic babbling; it was a challenge to you to either clarify
your meaning or substantiate your assertions, and it's frankly
no surprise to me that you can do neither.

One lie I simply will not allow to stand: You imply that I am
taking potshots at you from behind a false name ("...don't
assume that...anonymity allows a free dose of ego-benefitting
venom spewed at another."); this from someone whose posts
[check them out via Dejaviews, folks!] are often credited to
only "Sourdust"--only occasionally signed at the end by
"Kevin". [If you have _ever_ given us your last name, I must
have missed it.] My posts [check them out via Dejaviews,
folks!] are, with _extremely_ rare exception, signed "rich
brown a.k.a. DrGafia." My given name is Richard Wayne Brown
but I prefer the less formal (but nonetheless real) rich brown;
I am a.k.a. (also known as) "Dr Gafia"--a name given to me by
others in the community of science fiction fandom, which I have
explained a couple of times in this news group [and no, Kevin,
I realize it's not your fault that you haven't read it]. What
we have here, then, is a case of the pot calling the kettle
black. Hypocrisy, in a word. This is not surprising, either.

For the record, I do find some fault in this matter falling on
myself. Of course I do. At the moment, the largest of these
involves me wondering how in the world I managed to let myself
get involved in a battle of wits with someone who is only half
armed.

The bright side, as I see it, is that you've gone on to say, at
considerable length, that you will have nothing more to say on
the topic. Fine; that leaves the field to me. Don't make a
liar of yourself, now! (Excuse me while I twist the edges of my
moustache and laugh evially.)

Now, then. There is no such thing as "objective" criticism;
once you enter the realm of articulating whether you believe
something to be artistically "good" or "bad" (or a mixed bag of
good or bad), you are doing no more than articulating your
subjective opinion of what is good or bad. Although certain
artistic forms can be defined--"essay," "sonnet," "sonata,"
"symphony," "still life," "abstract,"--it does not follow that
the best (most "good") is that which follows the definition the
closest. Specifically, there are minor faults to be found in
some of the sonnets of Shakespeare, Wyatt, Surrey, Marquis and
indeed most practitioners of the form; I can write (and in fact
have written) sonnets that are closer to the defined form but
it does not follow (alas and alack) that my sonnets are
_artistically_ superior to those slightly flawed sonnets cited.
Not for all of my (or your) wishing will it ever be otherwise.

Even though I've only managed to butt my way through half a
dozen of his plays and an even smaller percentage of his
poetry, my subjective evaluation holds that William Shakespeare
was (and remains) the finest writer in the English language. I
can back up this opinion by citing competent authority--there
are plenty of people in literary academia who would agree with
me. I can find consensus among other members of the artistic
intelligentsia. It can be argued from the standpoint of
"success"--Shakespeare was extremely well-off as a result of
his artistic endeavors and of course his plays and poetry
continue to sell enough that he would be well off if he were
living and receiving royalties for his works even now. I
could, as many a critic would, pick out and explain examples of
Shakespeare's artistry to help back up my contention.

But all this would still be the articulation of (in this case,
my) subjective tastes. Even the opinion that The Bard was (and
remains) a "good" writer is subjective--I happen to think he
was, but there are plenty who would not agree. I might look
down my nose at those who preferred Danielle Steele, but if I
turned around and looked in the other direction I'm sure I'd
see those who preferred William Blake looking down their noses
at me. In fact, I can almost "hear" them pointing out that The
Bard was as much of a hack as Danielle Steele--he made a good
living by giving the common folk lots of crude and obscene
jokes to enjoy while pandering to the intelligentsia with what
_they_ wanted, i.e., "fools acting like kings and kings acting
like fools". The Bardoloteers could be condescending--after
all, William Blake nearly starved to death because he couldn't
sell his self-published works, so it's understandable that his
followers might be a bit "testy" on the matter of immediate
artistic success. In their turn, the Blakeites could point out
that while it's true Blake started with a popularity factor of
zero, his popularly has constantly risen since after his death,
whereas Shakespeare's has waxed and waned at least a couple of
times. Oh, the debate would be fast and furious--and, as I
said at the outset, entirely subjective.

rich brown a.k.a. DrG...@aol.com

[Sourdust]

In article <199805161057...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, drg...@aol.com
(Dr Gafia) writes:

>It's true, Kevin, I did and do sneer

Very good. Let's put it to rest Rich.

K

[DenaEdw]

Dr. Gafia wrote, in part:

>It's true, Kevin, I did and do sneer at your intellectual
>pretension, but I'm perfectly willing to let what I have said
>and what you have said be placed side by side and judged. This
>is the internet, after all, and anyone with any intellectual
>rigor can and will trace this subject title via Deja News and
>thus will see everything that you have said and everything that
>I have said.

Etc., etc., etc.

Wow, I don't know what sparked all of this, but I must say, Rich,
that I found this last post quite interesting. I don't know whether it's
laziness, impatience, or intellectual inferiority on my part, but a lot of
times I give up on long posts of this nature. In my entirely subjective
opinion, this one was worth reading to the end.

Dena

[Dr Gafia]

In article <199805161115...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, sour...@aol.com
(Sourdust) writes:

>>It's true, Kevin, I did and do sneer
>

>Very good. Let's put it to rest Rich.

Tch! But you miss my point, Kevin. YOU have give up the field; I have not. I
will continue to make my point no matter how much, in your subjective opinion,
you may feel I should be doing otherwise. I grant it's a pity that you dropped
a little crazy glue on back of your wrist and slapped it to your forehead, so
now you appear to be Stuck Like That but, really, Kevin, it's Not My Problem!

8-([:~>}

rich brown a.k.a. DrG...@aol.com

[Sourdust]

In article <199805190558...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, drg...@aol.com
(Dr Gafia) writes:

>Tch! But you miss my point, Kevin. YOU have give up the field; I have not.
>I will continue to make my point

Carry on, son. You are welcome to continue. One must find meaning, I agree, or
lose face. I wish you the best.

>you may feel I should be doing otherwise.

No. Please. Keep it up.

Regards,

K

[Duvelle]

Regarding what I assume is the now-infamous "objectivity debate":

Was recently reading a novel and came across this quote:

"Endlessly repeating the same process, hoping for a different result."

This was said to be Einstein's definition of insanity. For some reason, I
read this and instantly thought of this thread.

At this point, it is worth considering.

Duvelle (posting despite a whirlwind of indecision as to whether or not a :)
is in order...)

[Tonia]

Duvelle wrote:

This could be the defninition of LIFE. It is the same process repeated again
and again with only the faintest glimmer of hope that there will be a different
result at the end. Reminds me of a song I rather like, goes something like
this: "If we all...go insane...we can all...go...together..."

Tonia

[Duvelle]

I wrote, in part:

>"Endlessly repeating the same process, hoping for a different result."

This was said to be Einstein's definition of insanity. For some reason, I read
this and instantly thought of this thread.<

And Tonia wrote in part, in response to my saying the above:

>>This could be the defninition of LIFE. It is the same process repeated again
and again with only the faintest glimmer of hope that there will be a different
result at the end. <<

This, of course, could go off into a whole 'nother thread altogether. And if
it did, we might disagree, unless certain terms were agreed to at the onset...

...however, disregarding such issues, I would be inclined to conclude that
life is insanity, insanity is life, and NOW I understand what all these little
voices inside and outside of my head keep telling me. :)

Duvelle

[Tonia]

Duvelle wrote:

> >>This could be the defninition of LIFE. It is the same process repeated again
> and again with only the faintest glimmer of hope that there will be a different
> result at the end. <<
>
> This, of course, could go off into a whole 'nother thread altogether. And if
> it did, we might disagree, unless certain terms were agreed to at the onset...
>
> ...however, disregarding such issues, I would be inclined to conclude that
> life is insanity, insanity is life, and NOW I understand what all these little
> voices inside and outside of my head keep telling me. :)
>

Duvelle,

That was the enlightenment that I came to! :-)

Tonia