[lit-ideas] Re: Patty Duke & The Apriori [part 2of 2]
- From: "Walter C. Okshevsky" <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 15:21:07 -0230
Please vide specific replies below ---------->
Quoting John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Walter C. Okshevsky <wokshevs@xxxxxx>wrote:
>
> >
> > So, if you want to know what "love" means, give up the Cartesian effort to
> > identify its underlying essence across differing appearances, and simply
> go
> > look at people who say they are in love and attribute "being in love" to
> > others
> > and then find out what movies they are seeing, what kinds of foods they
> are
> > eating, what they're doing to and with each others' bodies, minds and
> > souls,
> > etc.
> >
JM:
> I am instantly reminded of the opening of Howard Becker's *Tricks of the
> Trade.* Becker notes that, like most students at the University of Chicago,
> he quickly
> acquired the habit of asking, "How do you define that?" Then he
> learned from sociologist Everett Hughes the trick of changing the
> question. When discussing, for example, the nature of ethnic groups,
> students would thrash around endlessly trying to find a list of
> necessary and sufficient attributes. Hughes suggested instead that an
> ethnic group exists when both those inside the group and those outside
> the group say that it does. The interaction defines the group instead
> of vice-versa.
--------> U of Chic - very impressive. A legacy left by Mead and Cooley for the
sociologists, and more recently, Bloom and Pippin on the Social and Political
Thought programme. (Was there also a fellah called "Dewey" there?) I'd be there
if the conditions were right.
Yes, the anti-Cartesian Heideggerian metaphysics does indeed countenance the
view that "interaction defines the group." Of course, there is the small matter
as to the criteria that those inside and outside the group are using to make
those attributions. If the criteria are cogent, they must allow for the
possibility of being mistaken. Otherwise, any interpretation of the rule ...
you know the rest of this Witterian myth.
> Now I find myself curious, wondering if behind this tale there lurks
> the banker/phenomenologist Alfred Schutz, described by the Stanford
> Encyclopedia of Philosophy as follows,
>
> Alfred Schutz, more than any other phenomenologist, attempted to relate the
> > thought of Edmund Husserl to the social world and the social sciences. His
> > *Phenomenology of the Social World* supplied philosophical foundations for
> > Max Weber's sociology and for economics, with which he was familiar
> through
> > contacts with colleagues of the Austrian school. When Schutz fled Hitler's
> > *Anschluss* of Austria and immigrated to the United States in 1939, he
> > developed his thought further in relationship to the social sciences,
> > American pragmatism, logical empiricism, and to various other fields of
> > endeavor such as music and literature. His work has been influential on
> new
> > movements in sociological thought such as ethnomethodology and
> conversation
> > analysis.
>
>
> John
--------> Schutz is one of the most underrated sociologists ever. The
intricacies and systematic rigour of his analyses put Husserl at his peak to
shame. I think Harold G. would agree. (But he really has to start wearing more
than a clean t-shirt to academic conferences.)
Walter O, Chair
Department of Ethnomethodology and Transcendental Deducation
University of Neverneverland
Somewhere in Kansas Toto, 853861
>
> --
> John McCreery
> The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
> Tel. +81-45-314-9324
> jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.wordworks.jp/
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
