I am struggling to define some relationships between Homer, Heraclitus and Protagoras based upon my limited knowledge of Greek poetry and philosophy. I suppose one might use the lengthy quality of Homeric epic poetry versus the short aphorisms of the latter two philosophers as a basis of comparison. I have also considered Heraclitus and Protagoras as thinkers working within different frameworks of "philosophy" as we might define the term today. Philosophy is in my opinion a formalistic inquiry into how the world exists and how reality is defined. This includes how humans might conduct themselves and also how they might construct a system of justice or define political life. We can see these lines of inquiry emerging in Protagoras and Heraclitis. As these kinds of philosophical considerations are embedded in Homer's oral epic poetry I feel that they are less systematically described.
Additionally, philosophizing in the time of the Presocratics appears to be open to debate, and debate does not seem to be part of the manner by which Homer constructs his narrative. Although the characters within the Iliad may debate each other, Homer's epic was not recited nor performed to elicit debate; in other words, I gather that Homer was not thinking about "philosophy as rhetoric" per se in his performances. He was not concerned with crafting an art of speech to defend one's rights and property like Protagoras who, according to Aristotle, even justified his right to take money to help people "better" themselves in the art of rhetoric.
Snell argues that the "Homer conceived of the thing which we call intellect in a different manner, and that in a sense the intellect existed for him, though not qua intellect." I am not quite sure what Snell means by intellect. Does Snell mean the construction of human subjectivity when he uses the term "intellect"? Another Snell question might be important here: "What did the Greeks at any given time know about themselves, and what did they not yet know?" Does Snell mean "self-consciousness", which could mean anything from having consciousness about one's world to theorizing about it? Aristotle writes about (and this is taken from a fragment in the Protagoras reading) how Protagoras struggled with geometry and mathematics as a legitimate subject of inquiry ("As Protagoras says of mathematics, the subject-matter is unknowable, and the terminology distasteful.") I cite this as an example of something that some "Greeks" did not yet know, or at least something that they could not agree on as an object of inquiry.
Finally, a comment on methodology: I can't even imagine how difficult it must be to construct a coherent philosophy of thinkers like Heraclitus and Protagoras from fragments of mostly secondhand sources.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Epic poetry
It has been quite a long time since I last read Homer, and this past week I had to mentally adjust to the non-direct, circular quality of the Iliad. I had to refamiliarize myself with verbal exchange that consisted of lengthy speeches issued from one character to the other. Because the characters do not respond to each other succinctly, one gets the feeling that they are lecturing to an invisible audience.
In short, I had to get used to reading epic poetry, which is an entirely different experience than one would have hearing it episodically and with variations of performance, as I would imagine to be the case of Homeric audiences. Havelock says, "Epic had been par excellence the vehicle of the preserved word through the Dark Age." (47) This idea of the "preserved word" is worthy of attention here, since it seems almost paradoxical to present a notion of "preserved word" vis-a-vis the stories in the Iliad. If Greek stories of gods and humans, warfare and ritual were passed orally (assuming this is preliterate Greece), they probably did not exist in the sense of "preserved", as a 1-1 copy of one story to the next, but as variations of each other. They were imitations, and one might consider Havelock's analysis of Plato, and the latter's problems with Homer, in light of this chain of imitation, of poor imitations.
This leads me to one of main question (posed by Havelock) in this week's reading: what exactly is Plato's problem with mimesis? According to the classicist, Plato applies the term to a variety of Homeric contexts. Is Plato's problem with mimesis a question of the act itself, coming from the poet, or mimesis in the context of epic poetry? I am inclined to think that Plato's issue with imitation lies in the genre, and most crucially, in the experience, of listening to and absorbing the messages of epic poetry over and over again. In Plato, this sort of "brainwashing" of the listeners and audiences of epic poetry is antithetical to the engagement of Socratic dialogue, and as a form of paideia, only a weak copy (as Dan mentioned) of existing, deeper bodies of knowledge. I.e., if you want to learn about making a boat, don't ask Homer to give you a lecture, ask the boatmaker or sailor.
In short, I had to get used to reading epic poetry, which is an entirely different experience than one would have hearing it episodically and with variations of performance, as I would imagine to be the case of Homeric audiences. Havelock says, "Epic had been par excellence the vehicle of the preserved word through the Dark Age." (47) This idea of the "preserved word" is worthy of attention here, since it seems almost paradoxical to present a notion of "preserved word" vis-a-vis the stories in the Iliad. If Greek stories of gods and humans, warfare and ritual were passed orally (assuming this is preliterate Greece), they probably did not exist in the sense of "preserved", as a 1-1 copy of one story to the next, but as variations of each other. They were imitations, and one might consider Havelock's analysis of Plato, and the latter's problems with Homer, in light of this chain of imitation, of poor imitations.
This leads me to one of main question (posed by Havelock) in this week's reading: what exactly is Plato's problem with mimesis? According to the classicist, Plato applies the term to a variety of Homeric contexts. Is Plato's problem with mimesis a question of the act itself, coming from the poet, or mimesis in the context of epic poetry? I am inclined to think that Plato's issue with imitation lies in the genre, and most crucially, in the experience, of listening to and absorbing the messages of epic poetry over and over again. In Plato, this sort of "brainwashing" of the listeners and audiences of epic poetry is antithetical to the engagement of Socratic dialogue, and as a form of paideia, only a weak copy (as Dan mentioned) of existing, deeper bodies of knowledge. I.e., if you want to learn about making a boat, don't ask Homer to give you a lecture, ask the boatmaker or sailor.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Globalization just goes on and on
In Globalization: A Very Short Introduction, Steger insightfully addresses both the time- and space-based aspects of globalization. I feel that very often the temporal, longitudinal dimension of globalization processes is ignored and that experts, academics and historians often wish to set their narratives or theories of globalization resolutely in the present. Steger positions himself as someone who wishes to flesh out these processes and move beyond popular ideas linking the interconnectedness of the world to technological innovation, industrialization and to the capitalist economic model (i.e., Thomas Friedman, who needs to wake up to intensified socioeconomic inequality across his "flat" globe.) I especially like how Steger includes one quality of globalization processes as not only occurring "on an objective, material level but also [involving] the subjective plane of human consciousness."
Globalization is not a singular thing or one narrative- it is a set of processes that are constantly changing and evolving towards this notion of "globality" that Steger speaks of, a more interconnected world of people ideas objects and geographies. It is truly such a tricky concept to think about because one can present so many different threads of globalizing tendencies and manifest so many "ideologies of globality" at so many points in the world. I could be speaking about the impact or the flows of information, knowledge and people from my perspective, but someone from another part of the world might and most definitely has a different outlook on these flows of information, goods, people, ideas and on the moral questions of how these changes are taking place and whether it is even good that they are happening. Our subjectivities and ideas of relating to one another have grown paradoxically larger and smaller. We may know more about the our online friend in Southeast Asia who we have never met than we do our local politicians or neighbors. Or else we might conceive of global community as something exclusive to a certain group of people. Or we might never leave Manhattan but spend all day trading stocks on the international market via the Internet. It is this weird, flexible dimension of globalizing processes today that I find so fascinating.
In another class of mine, Social Aspects of Internet Technology, we discussed the use of metaphors in language, science, culture and technology, and how they assist us in creating mental pictures and mnemonic devices, and also in deepening our understanding of certain concepts. We have been doing that in our Coreseminar as well. I realized that reading Steger's definition of globalization fit almost perfectly with the dynamics of the Internet communication, which includes material connections and the interactions of human users. As we know the world of Internet communications is made of millions of flows and countless social, cultural, economic, political and ideological transactions occur every second. I would like to write out Steger's concept of globalization, as I find that the very language he uses illustrates this metaphor:
"The term globalization applies to a set of social processes that appear to transform our present social condition of weakening nationality into one of globality...movement towards greater interdependence and integration..an uneven process...
with four qualities or characteristics:
1) the creation of new, and the multiplication of existing social networks and activities that cut across traditional political, economic, cultural and geographical boundaries
2) the expansion and the stretching of social relations, activities and interdependencies
3) the intensification and acceleration of social exchanges & and activities
4) globalization processes do not occur merely on an objective, material level but also involve the subjective plane of human consciousness"
(Steger, 13-15)
The Internet metaphor fails, however, when we think about the historical modulations of globalization. A computerized global network with the kind of span and reach of Internet communication has only been in existence for the past several decades, whereas Steger speaks of the many kinds of global linkages, migrations, and technological developments that have transformed our relationships across geographical and temporal boundaries and brought them closer together. The Internet globalization metaphor only works in terms of thinking about immediate fluxes and flows of our world. It fails to show us where we are going or where we wish to go; it shows us process but can't show us details or directional changes- we would have to zoom in and analyze a piece of the overall picture.
Similarly to bring this rambling post back to Jared Lanier's point- we are growing more connected, perhaps, in terms of the amount of network cables and Internet connections that exist in comparison to decades ago, but are we truly interacting more in a meaningful way? Or are we simply all agreeing upon banal facts or stories, and burying important information and voices?
Globalization is not a singular thing or one narrative- it is a set of processes that are constantly changing and evolving towards this notion of "globality" that Steger speaks of, a more interconnected world of people ideas objects and geographies. It is truly such a tricky concept to think about because one can present so many different threads of globalizing tendencies and manifest so many "ideologies of globality" at so many points in the world. I could be speaking about the impact or the flows of information, knowledge and people from my perspective, but someone from another part of the world might and most definitely has a different outlook on these flows of information, goods, people, ideas and on the moral questions of how these changes are taking place and whether it is even good that they are happening. Our subjectivities and ideas of relating to one another have grown paradoxically larger and smaller. We may know more about the our online friend in Southeast Asia who we have never met than we do our local politicians or neighbors. Or else we might conceive of global community as something exclusive to a certain group of people. Or we might never leave Manhattan but spend all day trading stocks on the international market via the Internet. It is this weird, flexible dimension of globalizing processes today that I find so fascinating.
In another class of mine, Social Aspects of Internet Technology, we discussed the use of metaphors in language, science, culture and technology, and how they assist us in creating mental pictures and mnemonic devices, and also in deepening our understanding of certain concepts. We have been doing that in our Coreseminar as well. I realized that reading Steger's definition of globalization fit almost perfectly with the dynamics of the Internet communication, which includes material connections and the interactions of human users. As we know the world of Internet communications is made of millions of flows and countless social, cultural, economic, political and ideological transactions occur every second. I would like to write out Steger's concept of globalization, as I find that the very language he uses illustrates this metaphor:
"The term globalization applies to a set of social processes that appear to transform our present social condition of weakening nationality into one of globality...movement towards greater interdependence and integration..an uneven process...
with four qualities or characteristics:
1) the creation of new, and the multiplication of existing social networks and activities that cut across traditional political, economic, cultural and geographical boundaries
2) the expansion and the stretching of social relations, activities and interdependencies
3) the intensification and acceleration of social exchanges & and activities
4) globalization processes do not occur merely on an objective, material level but also involve the subjective plane of human consciousness"
(Steger, 13-15)
The Internet metaphor fails, however, when we think about the historical modulations of globalization. A computerized global network with the kind of span and reach of Internet communication has only been in existence for the past several decades, whereas Steger speaks of the many kinds of global linkages, migrations, and technological developments that have transformed our relationships across geographical and temporal boundaries and brought them closer together. The Internet globalization metaphor only works in terms of thinking about immediate fluxes and flows of our world. It fails to show us where we are going or where we wish to go; it shows us process but can't show us details or directional changes- we would have to zoom in and analyze a piece of the overall picture.
Similarly to bring this rambling post back to Jared Lanier's point- we are growing more connected, perhaps, in terms of the amount of network cables and Internet connections that exist in comparison to decades ago, but are we truly interacting more in a meaningful way? Or are we simply all agreeing upon banal facts or stories, and burying important information and voices?
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
World order, the definition of epistolary, and permanent education as necessity!
Hi class,
I thought it would be a fun exercise to write this blog entry in letter form. I looked up the word "epistolary" (of or pertaining to letters, according to Oxford English Dictionary), which was used to describe the novel Emilia, one of our readings, and decided, hey, why not, since this post is unstructured, I'll make this an epistolary blog entry.
Firstly, regarding Deibert, I was intrigued by his elucidation of the study of transformations of world order; I have heard of international studies, certainly, but not world order studies. Do institutes in "World Order Studies" exist, and is this a new discipline? His project of examining several periods of technological development on a global order, and using medium theory interpreted through an ecological, holist lens, is certainly an ambitious one. I like his thinking about technology (material as well as cognitive/perceptual/symbolic aspects) and lived, dynamic culture vis-a-vis Darwinian ideas of change and "descent with modification". I too believe that ideas grow stronger or weaker in certain environments; that these environments are constantly changing, and that our responses and attractions to technology are located in a complex, very often unpredictable matrix that can extend from the (relatively) small, individualized scale (for example, my decision to buy an iphone or to stop texting friends, or to purchase a book online or teach an e-course) to phenomena with more global reaching developments (twitter getting nailed by a DOS attack.)
About Emilia: I found myself simultaneously agreeing with and getting frustrated with Rob's points. Unfortunately I think that many adults have to go to back out of necessity, because jobs in this day and age require retooling of existing skill sets, or the acquisition of entirely new skill sets. "Permanent education" is a necessity for many to improve their socioeconomic lot, and I think that attitude is in some ways more historicist and historically accurate than asserting or trying to convince policymakers and educators that everyone wants to learn because they have the time and money and desire to do so. I also think that it is important to offer a myriad of ways of learning, and not to oust one form (let us not throw away the textbooks entirely!) for another. At the same time I understand his point about not trying to reinvent the wheel- maybe what we should be doing instead is addressing the needs of this day and age.
What comes to my mind, personally speaking, is the need overall for a "media management" or information organization class, some workshop where students are taught the basics of organizing files and media assets, naming them properly, citing them...these are all things that I wish I had learned properly and are extremely useful in graduate school and professional life. What might come naturally to others came to me only after many years of stumbling around, reading informational texts here and there, and receiving training from a professional web developer. I was taught the absolute importance of organizing media files, and thereafter acquired my own way of organizing my desktop and files. This is, IMHO, an important skill set for students, teachers, media makers, editors, and producers, administrators, virtually anyone working with digital assets. One practice in media/information organization and blogs that I have learned over the years is to first write entries in a text editor, save them, and then paste them in the blog interface, after having lost material in previous years...yikes!)
I would like to close by saying that I am eager to respond to focused questions in the future. I find these open-ended responses a bit overwhelming, but that's just the kind of learner/student that I am! I like questions to respond to and discursive flexibility around that.
Hope you'll take the time to write back!
Best of luck in this new school year,
Sophie
I thought it would be a fun exercise to write this blog entry in letter form. I looked up the word "epistolary" (of or pertaining to letters, according to Oxford English Dictionary), which was used to describe the novel Emilia, one of our readings, and decided, hey, why not, since this post is unstructured, I'll make this an epistolary blog entry.
Firstly, regarding Deibert, I was intrigued by his elucidation of the study of transformations of world order; I have heard of international studies, certainly, but not world order studies. Do institutes in "World Order Studies" exist, and is this a new discipline? His project of examining several periods of technological development on a global order, and using medium theory interpreted through an ecological, holist lens, is certainly an ambitious one. I like his thinking about technology (material as well as cognitive/perceptual/symbolic aspects) and lived, dynamic culture vis-a-vis Darwinian ideas of change and "descent with modification". I too believe that ideas grow stronger or weaker in certain environments; that these environments are constantly changing, and that our responses and attractions to technology are located in a complex, very often unpredictable matrix that can extend from the (relatively) small, individualized scale (for example, my decision to buy an iphone or to stop texting friends, or to purchase a book online or teach an e-course) to phenomena with more global reaching developments (twitter getting nailed by a DOS attack.)
About Emilia: I found myself simultaneously agreeing with and getting frustrated with Rob's points. Unfortunately I think that many adults have to go to back out of necessity, because jobs in this day and age require retooling of existing skill sets, or the acquisition of entirely new skill sets. "Permanent education" is a necessity for many to improve their socioeconomic lot, and I think that attitude is in some ways more historicist and historically accurate than asserting or trying to convince policymakers and educators that everyone wants to learn because they have the time and money and desire to do so. I also think that it is important to offer a myriad of ways of learning, and not to oust one form (let us not throw away the textbooks entirely!) for another. At the same time I understand his point about not trying to reinvent the wheel- maybe what we should be doing instead is addressing the needs of this day and age.
What comes to my mind, personally speaking, is the need overall for a "media management" or information organization class, some workshop where students are taught the basics of organizing files and media assets, naming them properly, citing them...these are all things that I wish I had learned properly and are extremely useful in graduate school and professional life. What might come naturally to others came to me only after many years of stumbling around, reading informational texts here and there, and receiving training from a professional web developer. I was taught the absolute importance of organizing media files, and thereafter acquired my own way of organizing my desktop and files. This is, IMHO, an important skill set for students, teachers, media makers, editors, and producers, administrators, virtually anyone working with digital assets. One practice in media/information organization and blogs that I have learned over the years is to first write entries in a text editor, save them, and then paste them in the blog interface, after having lost material in previous years...yikes!)
I would like to close by saying that I am eager to respond to focused questions in the future. I find these open-ended responses a bit overwhelming, but that's just the kind of learner/student that I am! I like questions to respond to and discursive flexibility around that.
Hope you'll take the time to write back!
Best of luck in this new school year,
Sophie
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
