Re: Possibly stupid question for you IBM mainframers... :-)

From: Edward G. Nilges (spinoza1111_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 07/21/04

  • Next message: Carol: "Re: Layout Hell." 
    Date: 20 Jul 2004 20:08:00 -0700

    docdwarf@panix.com wrote in message news:<cdcn18$2e7$1@panix5.panix.com>...
    > In article <f5dda427.0407171658.12054e2a@posting.google.com>,
    > Edward G. Nilges <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > >docdwarf@panix.com wrote in message news:<cdbffn$a92$1@panix5.panix.com>...
    > >> In article <f5dda427.0407161953.665181ce@posting.google.com>,
    > >> Edward G. Nilges <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > >> >docdwarf@panix.com wrote in message news:<cd8kif$bb0$1@panix5.panix.com>...
    > >> >> In article <f5dda427.0407151840.11a6ef20@posting.google.com>,
    > >> >> Edward G. Nilges <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > >> >> >docdwarf@panix.com wrote in message news:<cd5ij1$89o$1@panix5.panix.com>...
    > >> >> >> In article <f5dda427.0407141855.29014ef9@posting.google.com>,
    > >> >> >> Edward G. Nilges <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> [snip]
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> >Many companies and other institutions talk a good game about getting
    > >> >> >> >rid of their mainframes and their inventory of Cobol programs, because
    > >> >> >> >structurally "the mainframe" has become the intended focus of user
    > >> >> >> >resentment, in a structure wherein the phenomenon is divided between
    > >> >> >> >"usable, direct, honest" speech, and "unusable, overly complex, and
    > >> >> >> >dishonest" writing.
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> Now this is an interesting distinction... speech vs writing? There are
    > >> >> >> many examples in common culture how the graphic ('graphic' here is used in
    > >> >> >> the sense of 'writing' instead of 'drawing'; compare 'telegraph' with
    > >> >> >> 'graphic arts') is superior to the spoken ('get it in writing', 'it is
    > >> >> >> written thus', 'it's in the book' all indicate a kind of solidity or
    > >> >> >> permanence).
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >That is why the situation is so damn confusing and that is why a Frog,
    > >> >> >of all people, is needed to sort it out for us (Derrida).
    > >> >>
    > >> >> A structuralist... ahhhhh, now it begins to become apparent.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> (I almost wrote 'now it makes sense'... but then realised the inherent
    > >> >> contradiction.)
    > >> >
    > >> >Without structuralism there is no making sense, for example, of the
    > >> >fact that Plato explicitly derides the very idea of a comprehensive
    > >> >encyclopedia or manual while he relied during his lifetime on writing.
    > >> >Human behavior being constantly self-reflexive is not going to "make
    > >> >sense" in any neat, technical or artifactual sense.
    > >>
    > >> What you describe here seems to be along the lines of 'members of the
    > >> human species do not always behave in fashions which other members of that
    > >> species would label as 'sensible'' or 'Sense? Why do you expect something
    > >> to 'make sense' when you're dealing with people?'
    > >
    > >The educational system disseminates, as a mark of
    > >pseudo-enlightenment, the idea that "nothing makes sense when dealing
    > >with people".
    >
    > Another blanket assertion without support... consider that such things are
    > likely to be dismissed out-of-hand.
    >
    > >Structuralism and post-structuralism is an attempt to
    > >make sense which is probably why conservative educators are so
    > >terrified of it, for they are invested in a game in which only a
    > >futile reactionary stance is supposed to "make sense".
    >
    > I noticed that you were good enough to label them as 'attempts'... little
    > else might be said.
    >
    > >
    > >>
    > >> >
    > >> >>
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >Yes, on the face of it we think writing is superior to speech ("get it
    > >> >> >in writing").
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >But note how once you enter the education system past K-12 a very
    > >> >> >curious reversal takes place.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >A sort of Romanticism settles in where (perhaps merely as a result of
    > >> >> >academic and professional competition), orality resumes its topmost
    > >> >> >place vis a vis writing.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >Actually attending the lecture becomes "better than" reading the
    > >> >> >book...in part because any slob can "read the book".
    > >> >>
    > >> >> This was not my experience; in some institutions I attended (Bard,
    > >> >> Columbia, NYU) the professors made it clear that the lectures were
    > >> >> intended to compliment/supplement the text and that a student would be at
    > >> >> a disadvantage were s/he not familiar with both. At my Alma Mater (St
    > >> >> John's College, Annapolis, MD) the texts were considered paramount, to the
    > >> >> point where courses in the source-languages of many (Ancient Greek and
    > >> >> French) were required.
    > >> >
    > >> >Guess what. The professors are not in charge, while being absolutely
    > >> >essential to the continued functioning of the system.
    > >>
    > >> Guess what... I don't recall mentioning anything about 'in charge', doing
    > >> so reminds me too much of the Bilderbergers. You made a statement about
    > >> 'the education system past K-12' without any supporting evidence
    > >> and I gave evidence - granted, anecdotal - to the contrary.
    > >
    > >Granted, anecdotal.
    > >
    > >The education "game" has always been threatened by the book because in
    > >theory, some slob from the provinces could become that species of
    > >irritating auto-didact outside the university, closed of old to all
    > >but the wealthy EXCEPT when governments, in what has to be a
    > >high-handed manner, open the universities to talents from all social
    > >classes.
    >
    > Hmmmm... this seems to be... why, yes, another blanket assertion without
    > any documentation whatsoever.

    This is in fact self-reflexive "documentation" since it's clear you've
    been indoctrinated not to make sense without cites appropriate to the
    hard sciences.

    We become in other words well-trained not to make "blanket" assertions
    even when they are necessary by an ideology that dares not speak its
    name.

    >
    > >
    > >Thus the PhD candidate has always been expected, no matter what, to
    > >Oedipally overcome his professors in oral exchanges.
    >
    > Really? I thought that the PhD candidate, in order to be admitted into
    > 'the club', had to demonstrate to other members worthiness and that this
    > was, in essence, no different than a tinker or a cobbler presenting a
    > 'master-work' to the guild's authorities. Curious that one finds it
    > possible to see this simple test-of-skill in terms that include 'Oedipal'
    > and 'oral exchanges', though.

    The problem is that the process, in many instances, fails. Ability to
    teach is never tested and even scholarship is inadequately tested, by
    a reifying process at second tier institutions.

    These institutions are aware, with that self-protective habit of irony
    which is a feature of academic life, that the maxim is "publish or
    perish". One (ironic) response is to publish, but a more sophisticated
    response is to avoid publication. The problem is that the ironic
    response, which is a refusal of critique, leaves the reified system in
    control.

    A midwestern philosopher and teach, E. D. Klemke, published several
    books in a non-ironic spirit including Essays on Wittgenstein and
    works on the ontology of G. E. Moore. He remained non-ironic
    throughout his career and actually believed, with reason, that he was
    doing actual philosophy in this from his perch at two third-tier
    institutions, which were graced, IMO, by his presence.

    However, when I was asked to help nominate Klemke for a lifetime
    achievement award shortly before his death, I learned that he was
    denied the award by other faculty who'd felt he'd published...too
    much.

    A post-structuralist analysis of this sad situation, of the failure to
    recognize a man's lifetime achievement, would show that "publish or
    perish" by virtue of being an ironic response, and as such one that
    despairs of change, means that it should never be interpreted
    literally. What it MEANS is "publish what we expect to see, and do so
    with an ultimate unseriousness because the name of this game is tenure
    and parking spaces".

    As such, Klemke's very idea that the university might after all be a
    safe place for him to do philosophy was held up, throughout his
    career, to an undertone of scorn. He was also a brilliant teacher for
    the simple reason that he cared about philosophy, but this, of course,
    and 1.75 will buy a coffee at Starbuck's.

    >
    > >
    > >This may be a good thing. One needs to be able to think on one's feet.
    >
    > One might hope for chairs in the dissertation-chamber.

    With one hopes leg and arm restraints and a high-intensity lamp.
    Bitch-slapping might be a feature of some processes.

    >
    > >
    > >However, it pre-judges such phenomena as "distance learning" to such
    > >an extent that instiutions are pre-characterized as diploma mills
    > >irrespective of the hard work of their students.
    >
    > Oh, look... another blanket generalisation without any support outside of
    > it's own asserting.

    Best kind there is if one lives in a corrupt society.

    >
    > >
    > >>
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Different schools have different rules, though... whatever happened to the
    > >> >> wearing of the Freshman beanie, anyhow?
    > >> >>
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >In computing, I have long noticed how upper level executives depend
    > >> >> >not on writing but on orality.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Oh, I *cannot* resist... better than depending on things eminating from
    > >> >> the other end of the digestive tract, neh?
    > >> >>
    > >> >> >When one company made the mistake of
    > >> >> >trying to "groom" me for an upper level job as a suit, they placed
    > >> >> >great emphasis on my need to learn the Great Art of Powerpoint
    > >> >> >presentation.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >I was informed that my logocentric, professorial and bookish air were
    > >> >> >positive drawbacks because in the executive presentation, similar to
    > >> >> >the argument before the Supreme Court, the logocentric flow of
    > >> >> >presentation is continually interrupted and superseded by the orality
    > >> >> >of the executive's, or judge's breaking in with the question that
    > >> >> >undercuts the entire presentation.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> This might be the case only if the presentation's structure depends on an
    > >> >> uninterrupted flow. Consider the differences in presentation of a typical
    > >> >> Socratic dialogue and a classic university lecture; the latter depends on
    > >> >> a passive audience while the former allows for... well, dialogue.
    > >> >
    > >> >The paradox here is that the actual Socratic dialog was not a "dialog"
    > >> >in the dialogic, Bakhtinian sense at all.
    > >>
    > >> This just might possibly be one of the reasons that it was referred to as
    > >> a 'Socratic dialogue' and not a 'Bakhtinian' one.
    > >
    > >The REAL Socrates appears to have been more "Bakhtinian" than his
    > >amaneusis Plato who when he recorded "Socrates" was invested in the
    > >success of a written Academy. In other words...the corruption was
    > >written-in from the start.
    >
    > I am not sure what you are calling the 'REAL' (caps original) Socrates...
    > are you referring to the depiction in Xenophon? The answer to the
    > question of 'Vass you dere, Charlie' in regards to Socrates seems rather
    > obvious yet you seem to give credence to one depiction over another; this
    > might indicate nothing about what was 'REAL' but, more Rohrshach-like,
    > everything about the prejudices brought to the subject.
    >
    > (Oh... and that assertion about the 'REAL' Socrates had - little surprise
    > here - nothing in the way of support outside of itsself.)
    >
    Except, of course, the text.
     
    > [snip]
    >
    > >>
    > >> 'Speech is silver yet silence is golden' is often... said.
    > >
    > >Which is of course the paradox that Derrida got all hung up on. Speech
    > >about speech is a zone of paradox.
    >
    > So might be said about thinking about thinking... but in those days folks
    > didn't have television, they had to do *something* with their time.
    >
    > DD

  • Next message: Carol: "Re: Layout Hell."

    Relevant Pages