Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 13:15:52 -0500 From: "kenneth.mackendrick" <kenneth.mackendrick-AT-utoronto.ca> Subject: Smugness and Sibling Rivalry I'm not sure if this is an appropriate post - but it regards something that weighs heavily on my conscience. Has anyone else ever noticed that what people write in articles, publish in books, and say in conferences is different from what is spoken in class or at the local pub? Terms like critique and problematic, or muddied appear in journals but words like trash, incoherent, and stupid arise over a pint. There is a great spectre haunting public conversation these days - lets call it the demon of diplomacy. Many people (not all) separate, sharply, between what they say and what they really think. It, in my opinion, is the height of academic dishonesty. It is simply dishonest to sugarcoat thoughts in order to make them edible for an anticipated audience. This nonsense is a real problem - and i'm not saying that when people write they are being dishonest - i'll assume that ALL communicative exchanges stem from an honest reaction. I'm just interested in the divide here. When something pisses me off - i want to feel free to express my frustration, my anger, and my passion - publically and privately (as if these distinctions make sense anyway). If i come across as being condenscending - its because i feel that way! This does not necessarily relate to my feelings about a specific person - but rather about what they have said - the way they are reasoning etc. Obviously these things are not separate - but i think it is possible to engage people with some measure of reciprocity and respect and still be true to your own thoughts and feelings. and this is NOT to say that "emotion" takes hold of reason and becomes irrational. The separation of the two is absurd. Feeling and reason are completely entwined - we reason because we feel and our feelings motivate our reasoning. For instance - the whole cyber-human discussion bugs me. When i try to sugar coat my thoughts on the matter - "well maybe...." i'm just not being honest. I understand myself to be human. maybe a stream of consciousness will alter this in the future but for now i'm modern - NOT without reason. my passion, my anxiety, and my frustration all play into my arguments. i generate "good reasons" precisely because i take things seriously. My distain is not carte blanche - it comes with an explanation. I know i know - when in public discourse we are suppossed to take other peoples feelings into consideration... but at what price! we lie. this is nuts. i appreciate sincerety, honest, and candor - even if it is something i only perceive as such (and i seriously question the notion that self-deception is even possible). the so-called "flaming" response to my entropy piece is case and point. don walter's reply seemed to be an honest reaction - passionate reasons to boot. hurraayy!!!!! i raise my glass to candor and intellectual honesty. Please - tell me what you REALLY think. ken ps. i know this also involves issues of comfort, disclosure etc. so relapses, i suppose, are inevitable. but come on - let's at least try to narrow the divide between published works and bar room chatter -after all i don't think promoting the divide between public and private is very healthy in this political climate. its kinda psychotic when you think about it (or at least when I think about it). i guess (geez - this postscript is getting long) the issue of employment and publishability comes into play here as well.... but strategies are a poor substitute for honesty. pss. is this related to chora? --- from list french-feminism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005