John,
What do you mean by “sentiment?” One could perhaps be excused for seeing in
your last sentence a fear of, or rather a distancing from an interpretation of
sentiment that is primarily maudlin in nature and therefore unworthy of being
preserved. If on the other hand you during better times feel the sort of
attachment that might by some, perhaps you, be termed “love,” then it might at
such times be considered (by you) sufficient reason to keep the bar open. I
suppose only someone in close contact with his feelings (I personally have
never managed such a state except during brief periods when writing poetry)
could know with confidence what he in a case like you describe would mean by
this word.
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of John McCreery
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 10:02 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The value of lit-ideas
Julie,
Just want to say that I, too, have learned a lot by participating in Lit-Ideas.
Thus, the sentimental attachment that keeps me here. Is sentiment alone a
sufficient reason to keep the bar open?
John
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 27, 2019, at 13:29, Julie Campbell <juliereneb@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:juliereneb@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
I discovered Phil-List 15 years ago, when list-serve formats was new to me. I
lurked, fly on the wall, and listened to the Literati discusse Important
Things. I learned...more than I could have imagined. I eventually dared to
ask a question here, state an opinion there, and became comfortable in my
alleged anonymity. I only look at FB rarely, although my discipline does not
extend to sms format — such instaneous gratification we assume will be there!
I have always, and will always be, grateful for this. It keeps me less cynical
than I would have been otherwise.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 7:22 PM John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
Torgeir,
With all due respect, our problem has less to do with medium that (1) topic and
(2) participants.
TOPIC: there has been no discussion here of recent philosophy. Wittgenstein was
born in 1929, Paul Grice in 1913, Pierre Bourdieu in 1930, Heidegger in 1889.
All four might still have something significant to say to us, but with no
consideration of how our world differs from theirs and endless repetition of
old talking points, the conversation is, to me at least, tedious.
PARTICIPANTS: Our numbers shrink. Our members age. How do we recruit new
members? What do we say to them that makes joining our club attractive?
In a private conversation with Omar via Facebook Messenger, I described my
interest in parallel developments in several fields, where thoughtful scholars
are exploring ways to move beyond what A.N. Whitehead called the “bifurcation
of the world” into True and False, Essential and Superficial, Reason and
Emotion, mathematical substance and epiphenomenal fluff. I think of the work
of Chicago sociologist Andrew Abbott, French anthropologist Dominique Desjeux,
physicists turned management consultants, Jean Boulton, et al, cognitive
linguist George Lakoff, Belgian philosopher of science Isabel Stenger. I am
also interested in some serious thinking going on in Sinology, Francois
Jullien’s Propensity of Things, and Michael Pruett’s The Way, which discusses
Classical Chinese thinkers as offering diverse approaches to dealing with
urgent issues in 21st century life.
There’s a lot going on. Here I feel stuck in a dinosaur’s footprint with
fossilization well under way. Sentiment says, stay with these old friends.
Curiosity says, are you mad?
John
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 27, 2019, at 7:40, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
Yeah, the alternative to Lit-Ideas was Theoria. I was initially there rather
than on Lit-Ideas, but found it less pleasant than I expected and so moved over
to Lit-Ideas. I used to get in a lot of arguments with Andreas Ramos on
Phil-Lit, but at about the time I transferred from Theoria to Lit-Ideas he had
backed out as an active participant.
There was a medical doctor from Israel, I can’t recall her name, but she went
to Theoria at the same time all of the rest of us did. She and I used to be on
the same side of most arguments. When I moved over to Lit-Ideas she hoped I
would come back to Theoria, but I told her that I found Kramer too dictatorial
for my taste and suggested that she move over to Lit-Ideas but she said she had
been so offended by Andreas that she would never join a listserv that had his
name on it. Alas.
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Torgeir Fjeld
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 3:11 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The value of lit-ideas
Dear all,
Phil-lit, the precursor to lit-ideas, was a mailing list started to maintain
supplementary, running debate on the side of the journal Philosophy and
Literature back in the 90s. It was a novel attempt at bringing technology and
philosophy together in scholarly thought and practice. When the person with
administrator privileges after heated debate decided to close the list down
two successor lists emerged. According to reports, one of these lists were
short-lived, while the other, lit-ideas, has continued to host lively
discussions for 15 years.
Has the mailing-list format reached the end? It is possible that other kinds of
electronic communication has overtaken what was once a novel technology, and
that it is time to move a companion form of communication to social media.
However, there is no reason not to continue lit-ideas as a mailing list. The
view from here is that any introduction of our forum into social media should
include a reference to the mailing list and its history. We should also explore
the possibility of posting to social media from e-mail, such as is possible
with blogs, so that those without a subscription to these platform can continue
to post. (A similar option would be to establish some kind of feed of the
mailing list on the group page.)
While it is debatable which of the formats is supplementary, it seems that a
modest and realistic approach to any move into social media would adhere to the
rule of acknowledging our precursors.
Mvh. / Yours sincerely,
Torgeir Fjeld
https://torgeirfjeld.com/
Download the Introduction to my latest book -- rock philosophy: meditations on
art and desire -- for free from https://bit.ly/2vMGwVs. Get a 24% discount by ;
using code CFC159723D56 on checkout at the publisher
https://vernonpress.com/book/494. ;<https://vernonpress.com/book/494> It is
also available from Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Rock-Philosophy-Meditations-Art-Desire/dp/1622734416/ ;
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 14:00, John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
Me, too. Torgeir started this revival. Time he spoke up.
John
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 26, 2019, at 21:59, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
By the way, where is Torgeir, I would like to hear what he thinks about this ?
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:43 AM Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
About the group settings, I think closed would be best. We can invite those
whom we want to invite without having to deal with random visitors (or family
members for that matter).
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:43 AM John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
Excellent idea.
John
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 26, 2019, at 18:42, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
We will not close this group or anything. I think Lawrence does not have FB and
we don't want to lose his poetry. Besides, we can use this group as a sort of
meta for the group on FB.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:35 AM Carol Kirschenbaum <carolkir@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:carolkir@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
Ok, John. I'm convinced. I have no objections. If I had the patience to figure
out how to upload photos I'd probably have more patience for facebook. Usually,
though, I wind up feeling sadly excluded from all the travel, the festivities.
More distanced, emotionally. Common reaction, I hear, and actually painful
when I see the rare photo of my own grandchildren. (My age is more disabling
than I expected it to be, due to 50 years of rheumatoid arthritis. Travel is no
longer on my agenda.)
I guess we're moving!
Regards,
Carol
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 4 mini ™, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx> >
Date:03/26/2019 1:07 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The value of lit-ideas
Carol,
I am not keen on FB. I am tied via FB to all sorts of people in multiple
networks around the world. Can’t expect them to move on my whim. Also, as I
pointed out, FB does have several advantages. For me the ease of uploading
images or video and the ability to edit or delete previous posts or comments
make FB more congenial than our current email format.
Privacy is not a big concern. I am old (turning 75 in August). I am not worried
about people knowing or posting scandalous things that might impact my career.
If II write foolish things, it is no big deal.
Besides, Facebook already allows the creation of closed groups, in which only
members can see what is posted.
John
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 26, 2019, at 16:44, carol kirschenbaum <carolkir@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:carolkir@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
On Mar 25, 2019, at 10:56 PM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
Would anyone here be interested in moving lit-ideas to Facebook?
Hi John, Omar & All,
I’m not keen on FB. Will go along with whatever lit-id does. Hate to lose this
email format, though. And isn’t FB about to launch something like what we
already have here, in the name of privacy?
Carol K.
--
Julie Campbell 573-881-6889
https://juliesmusicandlanguagestudio.musicteachershelper.com ;
