And you thought my blog posts were too long
Just finished typing up the last of my comments on the eleven seminar papers I received this semester, and learned to my surprise that the document “finalpapers.10” is fifteen thousand words long. And now I have to write that paper on Rorty, without making the same damn mistake I always make. So I’ll pick up the arguments in the previous thread (and many other threads!) eventually—but right now, I have to get back to work churnin’ out prose. It’s just what we do around here, I guess.
In the meantime, here’s Jamie on the dance floor, from a dear colleague’s Saturday-night birthday-party bash:
Night fever, night fever, he knows how to do it. Here he is, prayin’ for this moment to last, livin’ on the music so fine, borne on the wind, makin’ it his.
Well, he’s no mdslet, aka Mr. Jiggy Fly on the Down Low, but it seems that JB’s got the moves, I’ll give him that. I hope someone is even now Photoshop(TM)ping
“Well, I guess I am a rather interesting man”“I know how to show it” onto the shot above.
And now I have to write that paper on Rorty, without making the same damn mistake I always make.
Confusing Richard with Amelie? Using “rain on your wedding day” as an example of ironism? Inquiring minds want to know.Posted by on 05/10 at 03:06 PM
in the service of that admirable strategy, you concede “modest realism” to Sokal, you are giving away the metaphysical cow for a handful of useless epistemological beans. This is fatal for our side (i.e. pragmatism). Our concern is, or should be, (what Putnam calls) “metaphysical realism,” whether in the case of fact or value. Thus Putnam’s attack, as the title of one of his later books has it, on “the fact-value dichotomy”: the idea that an objective realm of brute fact can save us from “relativism”, preserving a not-quite-so-objective realm of “social fact” safe for a distinct, hermeneutic form of inquiry.
In some contexts, I grant, something like that will be a quick-and-dirty way to put certain postmodern-relativist distractions to one side; but then that free pass given to “[brute] factual objectivity” will allow realists to claim (or assume without further argument) that that contextually useful distinction has metaphysical significance. (Rorty is intermittently okay on this in his reply to Searle, in Truth and Freedom). This will cause unsightly dandelions to re-sprout and mess up our nice green hermeneutical lawn.
I will totally admit, when I give this talk, that I didn’t see those dandelions coming and don’t yet know how to kill them. But I understand that I ...
captcha: mustPosted by Michael on 05/10 at 05:47 PM
Imagining a world in which Penn State used to publish a journal called: Hermeneutics, edited by my mentor professor. I shall stick with JB dancin, dancin, he is a dancin fool.Posted by on 05/10 at 06:00 PM
Big P. Pragmatism, aka the “cash value” account of Truth per Wm James, may assist links oder rechts--as with Al Gore’s AGW flick itself--an Inconvenient, but rather Lucrative bunch of semi-Truth--. Big P-ism means ideologues (including marxist ones, alas) may set aside evidentialism for lack of a better term when needed to move product--whether movie tickets, chevies, books on Liberalism, etc.....( granted at times prag. concerns--consequentialism, really-- may be relevant (ie, your meds work, or they don’t..but hardly a social construct that they do or don’t anymore than a few shots of cuervo are))
it might be recalled--or Doc Duck might recall it for us--that Hume’s fact/value distinction related to his discussion of ethics, or rather why there is no such thang...Putnam’s points may be related, but mostly tangentially. Prag.s are no objectivists in regard to values anyway...ie the Forest of Katyn massacre didn’t look too copacetic for stalin/NVDK, so they pin it on nazis...then ugly facts/evidence/testimony showed it was indeed due to NVDK, even if purging it resulted in greater pleasure, or “harmoniousness” ala Dewey..prag. often a type of utilitarian hype, really. scuzi rant)Posted by Ezra Hound on 05/10 at 06:49 PM
It’s even worse than that, mds
As someone with only a vague grasp of what all that kerfuffle was about, I’m still inclined to think that the “rain on your wedding day” thing would be worse. But since I don’t have a paper trail in such matters, I will both defer to your judgment and accept an endowed chair in literary theory.
you are giving away the metaphysical cow for a handful of useless epistemological beans
Give a man a handful of epistemological beans, and he’ll epistemate for a day. But give a man a metaphysical cow, and he can crouch behind it for cover when the bandits come, because ideas are bulletproof.Posted by on 05/10 at 07:26 PM
mds - For a long time, I thought the SI unit for irony should be the “spoon”, such that 10 kilospoons, as Alanis pointed out, would be pretty damn ironic.Posted by Gary Oxford on 05/10 at 07:54 PM
15 K words? That’s a star in your crown in heaven.
Btw, go ahead and use that in your Rorty paper-- that’s a crowd that would like that, right?Posted by on 05/10 at 09:10 PM
And I thought Jamie’s dancing looked more like a “don’t just stand there, bust a move” moment.Posted by Gary Oxford on 05/10 at 09:10 PM
You want it, you got it, Gary. And if Jamie had parachute pants, he could be saying “u cant touch this.” But the DJ did indeed play “Night Fever,” and did not play “Bust A Move.”
And his karaoke selection was most impressive. When was the last time I sang backup on the choruses to “Moonage Daydream”? Never, that’s when.Posted by Michael on 05/10 at 09:43 PM
When was the last time I sang backup on the choruses to “Moonage Daydream”?
I would have preferred some 70s Bowie mixed up in there.
One of the deep impressions i have from reading Rorty is that he actually cared to indulge himself in the interface between theory and the mundanity of day-to-day activities and perceptions. Surrounded, as he was at Stanford and the Bay Area, by analytical types, his efforts, for me, were more appreciated than most. And yes, he didn’t really push his envelope to include criminality and madness.Posted by on 05/10 at 11:35 PM
Oh wait, was the Moonage Daydream the Arnold Corns verison?Posted by on 05/10 at 11:41 PM
Jamie’s lookin’ downright foxy there!Posted by on 05/11 at 04:04 AM
Dewey’s serendipitous stew seems nearly wholesome compared to Rorty’s eggs scrambled ala Steinford--two different flavors of “whatever works, works” (tho’ many eggheads forget Rorty started out as an analytical ala Quine--WILLARD!). Pragmatist relativism means never having to say yr wrong--Posted by Ezra Hound on 05/11 at 01:36 PM
Very cool, Jamie.Posted by Hattie on 05/12 at 01:51 AM
I think this is an open thread, right? I want to ask Dr Berube a favor: please, please, please, pick the Canadiens to lose in the next series.Posted by on 05/12 at 09:49 PM
Habs 5, Pens 2
Jamie, this does NOT mean that your Dad is not omniscient, omnipotent and all kinds of other omnis.
CPosted by poicephalus on 05/12 at 09:52 PM
Yep, it’ll be Flyers over Canadiens in five. You can take it from me!Posted by Michael on 05/12 at 09:53 PM
five bucks, Toots.
CPosted by poicephalus on 05/12 at 09:55 PM
Well if we get some Hawks-Sharks (Hawks in 6) blogging, I’ll shut up about Dissent for the duration. Probably.Posted by on 05/13 at 01:02 AM
Bazz-fazz. Was that the most poorly-defensed short-handed goal in the history of short-handed goals in critical games or am I being unduly harsh? Although I think it was the not-putting-them-away-when-you-were-dominating-and-letting-two-short-Montreal-flurries-decide-Games-5-and-6-ness that really did in the Pens. (Oh, and that dude with the big stick that kept hanging around in front of their net and getting in the way of shots--what was up with that?)Posted by on 05/13 at 04:03 PM
(Oh, and that dude with the big stick that kept hanging around in front of their net and getting in the way of shots--what was up with that?)
Tell me about it.Posted by on 05/13 at 07:13 PM
Hey perfesor: How’z that essay comin?Posted by on 05/14 at 09:54 PM
Okay, there is no way i could see that coming. Down 3-0 at the start of the second period, the Flyers comeback and take the game and series? WTF??Posted by on 05/14 at 10:59 PM
Make that Games-4-and-6-ness. I suspect Ovechkin’s ego loved the way the series went down.
And Philly? Jesus.Posted by on 05/15 at 10:09 AM
WTF indeed. Of all the 0-3 comebacks, this has gotta be the most amazing, not only for game 7 but for the OT in game 4. All I can think is that this is Opposite Year in the Eastern conference: the first round of the West goes 1, 2, 3, 5, so the East goes 4, 6, 7, 8; then the West goes 1-2, so the East goes 7-8. I suppose this means that it’s either going to be Sharks-Habs or Hawks-Flyers in the finals, which sucks, because now I’m pulling for Hawks-HabsPosted by Michael on 05/15 at 07:16 PM
At this point I think I’ll root for whoever wins in the West. Just do not care for teams that barely qualify for the Playoffs winning it all.Posted by on 05/16 at 06:25 PM
Apparently, and i can only assume, that the Habs decided to only field their fourth and fifth lines with back-up goalies tonight. That way they can lull the Flyers into a daze somewhere around game 3. At least the West is competitive.Posted by on 05/16 at 10:31 PM
ad-consPosted by poicephalus on 05/17 at 12:08 AM
Who does Brian Boitano play for now? Great skater, tho’ choice of muzak not so great. Then even the Boi. can’t match Hammil’s old body checks and slapshots. Maybe there’s a pragmatist point in there. Maybe not.
captcha “hotel”, as in California.Posted by Ezra Hound on 05/17 at 03:02 PM