Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 06:43:52 -0400
From: Brad4d6-AT-aol.com
Subject: Re: HAB: patheticism conference


>It is interesting that you automatically assume that we are *championing*
>the phenomena that we describe in the conference call for papers (or
>"getting off" on our own admittedly somewhat glib wording - the brevity
>required of such a format can lend that appearance).
>
>Sincerely yours,
>
>Patheticism Conference Committee

I think you may have yourselves pinned down the problem: "(y)our own
admittedly somewhat glib wording".  And I don't think "brevity" is an
adequate explanation, since a different brief statement could have had very
different effect.

I was not the *only* person to interpret the conference as "*championing*"
the phenomena its proposal describes.  I had that *thought* as soon as I read
the posting, but I didn't post my opinion until after somebody else had
posted a similar interpretation.

If I "jumped to a conclusion", I think maybe I reacted like a cop in a New
York subway who suddenly sees somebody pointing a gun at him, shoots in
self-defense, and then finds out it was only a *toy* gun.  If you aren't
championing the phenomena the proposal describes, I would urge you to be
clearer about your intentions, because there is a lot of "stuff" out there
which does champion such phenomena.  Furthermore, at least since Freud, we
are sensitive that the "mis"interpretations to which our symbolic productions
lend themselves may be "significant" concerning our "deeper" thoughts and
feelings.

As I reread your prospectus, I find that I *can* interpret parts of it in a
more "neutral" way, if I decontextualize them.  For example: "to theorize the
irony-free zone as a necessary consequence of the attenuation of the
autonomous subject".  This phrase *could* be interpreted as urging a sobriety
of discourse to address the threatened status of self-accountability and
reflective thinking.  The following words (from Husserl's "Crisis of European
Sciences") provides a context for such a sentiment which, I propose, could
*not* easily be (mis)construed as I responded to your proposal:

"To the philosopher and to a generation of philosophers, acting responsibly
in a human and cultural space, there accrue, also deriving from this cultural
space, responsibilities and corresponding actions. It is the same here as it
is generally for men in times of danger. For the sake of the life-task that
has been taken up, in times of danger one must first let these very tasks
alone and do what will make a normal life possible again in the future. The
effect will generally be such that the total life-situation, and with it the
original life-tasks, has been changed or in the end has even become fully
without an object. Thus reflection is required in every sense in order to
right ourselves." (1954/1970, p. 392)

I do not have the institutional support (or private means) to attend your
conference, but I would be open to pursuing these matters further on this
mailing-list if other participants on the list feel that would be worthwhile.

>why participate at all in the
>debate if your only intention is to summarily dismiss?

My intention is not "summarily (to) dismiss".  Only relatively powerless
"things" can be summarily dismissed, and what is at issue here are "things"
which, whatever else they are -- for good or ill --, have a lot more power
than I have.   Elias Canetti (ref. lost) cites some words from a diary found
after the end of WWII: "But if I was really a writer, I would have been able
to prevent the war."  

Brad McCormick