The real enemies of the poor

[Faustine]

Jim worte:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Faustine wrote:

> What argument from authority? Barring the sudden onset of senility or 
> insanity, familiarity with past work gives you a general indication of 
> whether or not you want to read something.
>>Your question is your own answer. Your belief in their consistency, and
>>it's acceptability by your sensibilities, is an 'authority'. You've given
>>them trust a priori. I prefer they earn it each and every time anew.

No, that's not it: the only "trust" you give them comes with getting you on 
the first page in the first place, not what you come to think of it 
afterward. Surely you dont mean to say you never make choices of what to 
read based on something's potential value to you. Haven't you ever picked 
up a book because you anticipated enjoying it, started reading it, and put 
it down when you realized the methodology was flawed or the scholarship was 
poor after all? If not, maybe you need to be more discriminate... I bet you 
have though, and aren't quite the non-judgemental tabula rasa your comments 
indicate.


>>A personal note, I hate sequels.
> Even reading this list, I'm sure there are people you read first and 
>people you skip totally...And how likely is it that the first 15 essays 
are excellent but they saved the crappy ones for 16 on? ha!
>>Actualy I read just about every submission to the list, I don't in general
>>pick viewpoints based on personality. The whole 'cult of personality' crap
>>makes me queezy. 

Agh, not personality, it comes back to the matter of not wasting time: Some 
people seldom have anything to say that I find remotely interesting, so 
I've learned it's in my best interest to skip them. On the other hand, some 
people put really put some effort into their contributions and write in a 
relevant and thoughtful way--so when I'm pressed for time, (as I usually 
am) I read them first. If the subject is important enough I'll read all the 
comments, but otherwise it gets prioritized, like everything else. And none 
of this has the slightest thing to do with whether or not I agree with or 
like someone. Jeez, who haven't I argued with here...


>As to essays, I find it a rare author who writes 15 pages, let alone 15 
>essays, I don't find problems with. If you can read a
>book and go through an entire chapter without saying "wait just a damn
>minute..." then you're either not absorbing what is being said, you are
>reading material that is already in line with your views/expectations, or 
>else it's 'fluff'.

Absolutely.  I just happen to think you can have the highest degree of 
respect for someone's work you don't agree with, and that people you do 
agree with shouldn't get a free pass. Check the archives, that's basically 
what I've said all along.


>I'll make an observation, at the risk of offending sensibilities, from
>your past commentary you look for work that goes along with what you
>believe/want.

Look for? There's reading and then there's recommending. ;)


> Myself, I tend to go places where I'm the minority (this
>mailing list being an example) because the dialog is much more
>invigorating than sitting in a bunch of people who already agree with me.

Oy vey, that's what I've already said... I don't think anyone would exactly 
characterize my views as representative of the list as a whole either. Or 
maybe you don't see it, being focused on your own "me versus the list" 
dynamic, eh?
 

> All I'm saying is that his background credentials and published work was 
> every bit as impressive the performance at the meeting...and that one of 
> his essays is on the list. :) Now with a backstory like that, you 
> actually mean to tell me I don't have a good reason to look forward to
> reading it? HA! 
>Actually it demostrates my thesis above. You had a view, you found his
>view to be complementary (you agreed with everything he said),

No, not at all actually. Believe it or not, I'm not so arrogant and self-
assured that I have to agree with someone to be able to admit when they've 
got their opposition thoroughly outclassed in terms of sheer knowledge of 
the subject. Unlike other people in the room, the topic wasn't something I 
was heavily invested in in terms of reputation, career etc: anyone who 
tries to deny that makes a difference in how open-minded they are is 
fooling themselves. But everthing about the way he conducted himself 
presenting his arguments merited respect.  If you can't change your mind in 
the face of new evidence, you're too dogmatic, not intellectually flexible 
enough. Sure, he influenced me, where's the shame in admitting that. 
Learning from someone doesnt mean you gave up your own independent 
judgement. And I'd rather change my mind than be an ignorant blockhead 
stuck in an ideological rut. Like far too many I'm sure we both could name.


>and now you pursue that. Me, I'd hunt for the holes in his theory/argument 
>(and I guarantee they are there).

Of course. And if it were my main area of interest, you can bet he'd be the 
first person I'd go to to argue with and sound my own theories out on.


I'll save the second half for tomorrow...

~Faustine.