From books-owner Thu Feb 1 04:18:28 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA09779 for books-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 1996 04:18:17 GMT Received: from mail1.sas.upenn.edu (dcasteel@MAIL1.SAS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.26.32]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA35118 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 1996 23:18:14 -0500 Received: (from dcasteel@localhost) by mail1.sas.upenn.edu (8.7.3/SAS 8.05) id XAA15626 for books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu; Wed, 31 Jan 1996 23:17:17 -0500 (EST) From: dcasteel@sas.upenn.edu (The Goddess) Posted-Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 23:17:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199602010417.XAA15626@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: web site To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (books) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 23:17:16 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Here's my offer for the web site assignment: it's the homepage for the Association of College Unions International, an organization dedicated to the professional and staff development of the college union. It has personal value to me since I will be attending the ACU-I annual conference here in Philly in March. Check it out: http://www.gatech.edu/student.services/acui/index.html See ya tomorrow, Di -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "I got a bowling ball in my stomach I got a desert in my mouth figures that my COURAGE would choose to sell out now" -TORI Diane Casteel CAS 1998 NEC Vice-Chair for Feedback Houston Hall Marketing Coordinator Spring Fling '96 Marketing Co-Chair ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From books-owner Thu Feb 1 23:31:49 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA13807 for books-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 1996 23:31:47 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA36840 for books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu; Thu, 1 Feb 1996 18:31:43 -0500 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199602012331.SAA36840@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: your next assignment(s) To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 18:31:43 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 516 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk WRITE to the list or the group: So what do we learn about the interactions in *our* dialogue from our discussion of Plato? Be specific. Do we "talk past" each other? Does wisdom or enlightenment emerge? If so, how? If not, why not? ***************** For next class: finish Phaedrus and read Seventh Letter. The next task is to think about what's wrong not with rhetoric but with *writing*. THEN we need to talk about the *written* *dialogue* and what Mr. Plato is up to with his pretty speech. jo'd From books-owner Thu Feb 1 23:51:10 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA32632 for books-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 1996 23:51:09 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA06513 for books@ccat.sas; Thu, 1 Feb 1996 18:51:06 -0500 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199602012351.SAA06513@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: for comparison To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 18:51:06 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 315 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk You might enjoy looking at (at least the first few screens of): http://www.clas.ufl.edu/english/exemplaria/sympo.html#patterson It's about teaching Chaucer, but it starts of talking about lectures, dialogues, etc. "Lecturing is a passive-aggressive mode of relating", he quotes one writer saying. Yes? jo'd From books-owner Fri Feb 2 19:01:17 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA14556 for books-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 1996 19:01:07 GMT Received: from noc4.dccs.upenn.edu (NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU [128.91.254.39]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA34003 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 1996 14:01:02 -0500 Received: from BEN.DEV.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22621; Fri, 2 Feb 96 14:01:30 -0500 Received: by ben.dev.upenn.edu id NAA22372; Fri, 2 Feb 1996 13:56:19 -0500 From: stark@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Pamela Stark) Posted-Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 13:56:19 -0500 Message-Id: <199602021856.NAA22372@ben.dev.upenn.edu> Subject: more webstuff To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 13:56:16 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 754 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk This site is unlike any other I've found because it's fairly unpredictable- http://www.ucet.ufl.edu/~gulmer/turgy.html try clicking on fashion or voice. The sell: FETISHTURGY Tired of the old interface metaphors? Suspicious that the SCREEN is not a page? That HOMEPAGE is a dead metaphor? Ready to try something DIFFERENT? The University Lab for Media Electronic Research at the University of Florida is testing a new interface CATTtachresis for designing screen research-teaching-service: FETISH. The screen is not only LIKE a fetish, it IS a fetish. At the UF ULMER facilities The following objects of study are undergoing fetishization. From books-owner Sun Feb 4 23:02:16 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA44422 for books-outgoing; Sun, 4 Feb 1996 23:02:11 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA13697 for books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu; Sun, 4 Feb 1996 18:02:07 -0500 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199602042302.SAA13697@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: additional material To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 18:02:07 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 96 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Check from time to time items on: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/cultures.add.html jo'd From books-owner Mon Feb 5 07:52:18 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA24669 for books-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 1996 07:52:15 GMT Received: from central.cis.upenn.edu (CENTRAL.CIS.UPENN.EDU [158.130.12.2]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA39249 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 1996 02:52:05 -0500 Received: from blue.seas.upenn.edu (sameerm@BLUE.SEAS.UPENN.EDU [130.91.5.148]) by central.cis.upenn.edu (8.6.12/UPenn 1.4) with ESMTP id CAA29720 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 1996 02:52:32 -0500 Received: by blue.seas.upenn.edu id CAA03299; Mon, 5 Feb 1996 02:52:31 -0500 Posted-Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 02:52:31 -0500 Message-Id: <199602050752.CAA03299@blue.seas.upenn.edu> Subject: Quote on Love To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (CLST 158 listserv) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 02:52:31 -0500 (EST) From: "Sameer Y. Merchant" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 300 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition continuously until death do them part. -- George Bernard Shaw From books-owner Tue Feb 6 03:49:55 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11711 for books-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 03:49:54 GMT Received: from mail2.sas.upenn.edu (pasterna@MAIL2.SAS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.26.33]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA30394; Mon, 5 Feb 1996 22:49:51 -0500 Received: (from pasterna@localhost) by mail2.sas.upenn.edu (8.7.3/SAS 8.05) id WAA10631; Mon, 5 Feb 1996 22:50:17 -0500 (EST) From: pasterna@sas.upenn.edu (Karen E Pasternack) Posted-Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 22:50:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199602060350.WAA10631@mail2.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: talking past To: jod@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (James O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 22:50:16 -0500 (EST) Cc: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu In-Reply-To: <199602012331.SAA36840@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> from "James O'Donnell" at Feb 1, 96 06:31:43 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Dear everyone, I've been thinking about this assignment all weekend. I wonder if we have achieved any sort of enlightenment through our discussions. You could say that Plato set up Phaedrus in the form of a dialogue because he did not want it to seem as though he would be *talking at* the reader. However, when we discuss something the way we have in class aren't we simply doing exactly what Plato was trying to avoid. Maybe he was making a point about the way that one's *words* are best absorbed. Perhaps as the chairs participate in an abstract sense of *chairness*, we also are participating in something that is more abstract than we realize. Phaedrus can teach us that by our interactment in class, we are merely an abstract version of rhetoric. AFter all, we do record our words using the technology of the internet. We do engage in speech in class and have not created our own language with which to communicate. Maybe, this is just a lesson to prove that we can try all we want to plead our cases and separate our ideas regarding Pheadrus as if we were *making it new*. When all we are doing is proving Plato correct when he gives us the message that everything belongs to a higher catagory before we even begin to create it. If this is the case, than our entire idea of what defines the public sphere and the private sphere is questionable because the spheres that our discussions belonged to would eventually overlap and become part of the same abstract redundancy that provides us with a barrier to seemingly new forms of communication. -- Karen Pasternack University of Pennsylvania '98 215-417-0553 Minority Affairs Beat Reporter Daily Pennsylvanian 898-6585 From books-owner Tue Feb 6 06:39:22 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18511 for books-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 06:39:21 GMT Received: from shiva1.cac.washington.edu (shiva1.cac.washington.edu [140.142.100.201]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA14151 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 01:39:18 -0500 Received: by shiva1.cac.washington.edu (5.65+UW96.01/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA06520; Mon, 5 Feb 96 22:39:44 -0800 Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 22:39:44 -0800 (PST) From: Linda Wright To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Subject: What's Wrong with Writing? Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk What's wrong with writing? At first it seemed that writing and dialogue were opposites: the first has visible form, the latter only breath. That opposition is what made *written* *dialogue* seem so odd to me. Dialogue is uncomfortable because it wasn't supposed to be *seen*; letters on the page give it a self-consciousness. The intimacy of a conversation--the one between Socrates and Phaedrus--is lost because now you and I can see it and interlope. But wait! I've always argued that writing is intimate. After all, without it, I wouldn't have "overheard" the dialogue in the *Phaedrus*. But just as surely as writing allows me to participate in a conversation that took place long ago, it cheats those two people of their privacy. And when I read the *Phaedrus* alone I still enjoy an intimate experience, one very different from discussions in class. There is an opposition of the private sphere and the public sphere that Karen just mentioned. So is it wrong that writing robs one party of intimacy while granting it to another? Or is it wrong that the private sphere deprive the public sphere of a treasure of knowledge and information? The price it seems we have to pay is a loss of privacy, but often that loss also pays off handsomely. -Linda Wright Univ of Wash From books-owner Tue Feb 6 15:03:58 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA12089 for books-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 15:03:56 GMT Received: from central.cis.upenn.edu (CENTRAL.CIS.UPENN.EDU [158.130.12.2]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA16180 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 10:03:53 -0500 Received: from red.seas.upenn.edu (mniaz@RED.SEAS.UPENN.EDU [130.91.5.147]) by central.cis.upenn.edu (8.6.12/UPenn 1.4) with ESMTP id KAA11457 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 10:04:19 -0500 Received: by red.seas.upenn.edu id KAA29541; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 10:04:18 -0500 Posted-Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 10:04:18 -0500 Message-Id: <199602061504.KAA29541@red.seas.upenn.edu> Subject: Written Word : Inferior ??? To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 10:04:17 -0500 (EST) From: "SALMAN NIAZ" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2612 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk I am amazed at the truth represented in Socrates' recollection of the tradition, (which was passed down - written or orally) where in the egyptian king points out that written word may even become our weakness: An example paralled to that which comes to mind is the computerization of information at the library, there used to be a time when one would go to the library and read materials and take notes but now one only has to look up a few links, photocopy a couple of articles and feel as though he knows the information. Similarly written word may present the same situation when it concerns memory and knowledge. An argument that may be raised in favor of written word is the wide expansion of information out there, how else could there be such widespread accessible information of all that is there, if written word did not exist: imagine how many people you would have to run into to hear such a number of traditions or how many traditions your teacher would have to remember. Then Soc moves on to the argument that written word cannot defend itself. I would have to reject it on the terms that "written word"and "speech"are very similar in this way and just like a scientific speech defends itself, so does written word, in fact only better maybe. For written word can be pondered over again and again and read and reread in more and more depth till the reader can completely "comprehend"the message. Allow me to further say, that anological to scientific speech a scientific written artifact will not only defend itself but also explain itself and in effect attract the right kind of "souls"to it. However, written word may be referred to as a shadow of spoken word in the sense that one's thought process is originally in words, words which were originally meant for oral communication and a written form is thereafter composed hence replicating the speech that may have been delivered otherwise. My personal beliefs on this issue stand to support the written word as superior because it allows a less melodramatic transfer of knowledge than speech. This is to say that during a speech or converstion the other one maybe affected by the emotions of the speaker which in the case of a writer is to a lesser extent. For example while i write this i may be feeling fervously happy about my confession but the readers would not necessarily feel the same way. One may rebuke it as being incompetent on my part. However, my argument is that written word is justified more so with reasoning than spoken word where the listener may drift in the speaker's emotions. Salman From books-owner Tue Feb 6 15:40:43 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA05243 for books-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 15:40:42 GMT Received: from mail1.sas.upenn.edu (smfriedm@MAIL1.SAS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.26.32]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA19826 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 10:40:35 -0500 Received: (from smfriedm@localhost) by mail1.sas.upenn.edu (8.7.3/SAS 8.05) id KAA09908; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 10:41:00 -0500 (EST) From: smfriedm@sas.upenn.edu (steven morgan friedman) Posted-Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 10:41:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199602061541.KAA09908@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: Written Word : Inferior ??? To: mniaz@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (SALMAN NIAZ) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 10:41:00 -0500 (EST) Cc: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu In-Reply-To: <199602061504.KAA29541@red.seas.upenn.edu> from "SALMAN NIAZ" at Feb 6, 96 10:04:17 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Failing not to be unsuccessful in not being unclear, SALMAN NIAZ wrote: * * Then Soc moves on to the argument that written word cannot defend itself. * I would have to reject it on the terms that "written word"and "speech"are * very similar in this way and just like a scientific speech defends * itself, so does written word, in fact only better maybe. For written word * can be pondered over again and again and read and reread in more and more * depth till the reader can completely "comprehend"the message. Allow me to * further say, that anological to scientific speech a scientific written * artifact will not only defend itself but also explain itself and in * effect attract the right kind of "souls"to it. No, no, no, no! Salman, you miss the whole point of Socrates' argument. Remember, how does Socrates convince people of anything? Well, surprisingly using the Socratic method -- he questions them and questions them and questions them, until they eventually contradict themselves or come to an absurd conclusion. What Socrates is saying in this last section of Phaedrus is that you can't ask the written words any questions; you can't continue you them along in their argument so they reach absurd conclusions themselves. This, according to Socrates, is what makes the written word the weaker of the media. Steven ______________________ steven morgan friedman http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~smfriedm Mean People Suck From books-owner Tue Feb 6 15:56:00 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA29480 for books-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 15:55:59 GMT Received: from mail2.sas.upenn.edu (root@MAIL2.SAS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.26.33]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA24866 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 10:55:55 -0500 Received: from [130.91.191.103] (HRSA616.RESNET.UPENN.EDU [130.91.191.103]) by mail2.sas.upenn.edu (8.7.3/SAS 8.05) with SMTP id KAA13166; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 10:56:19 -0500 (EST) Posted-Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 10:56:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199602061556.KAA13166@mail2.sas.upenn.edu> X-Sender: snorman@postoffice.sas.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 10:58:25 -0500 To: smfriedm@sas.upenn.edu (steven morgan friedman) From: snorman@sas.upenn.edu (Sarah Norman) Subject: Re: Written Word : Inferior ??? Cc: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk >No, no, no, no! Salman, you miss the whole point of Socrates' argument. Yo, Steve! Would it kill you to be a little polite? Sarah ---<---<@ From books-owner Tue Feb 6 16:02:33 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA24198 for books-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 16:02:31 GMT Received: from mail1.sas.upenn.edu (smfriedm@MAIL1.SAS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.26.32]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA07293 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 11:02:25 -0500 Received: (from smfriedm@localhost) by mail1.sas.upenn.edu (8.7.3/SAS 8.05) id LAA15275; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 11:02:50 -0500 (EST) From: smfriedm@sas.upenn.edu (steven morgan friedman) Posted-Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 11:02:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199602061602.LAA15275@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: Written Word : Inferior ??? To: snorman@sas.upenn.edu (Sarah Norman) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 11:02:49 -0500 (EST) Cc: smfriedm@sas.upenn.edu, books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu In-Reply-To: <199602061556.KAA13166@mail2.sas.upenn.edu> from "Sarah Norman" at Feb 6, 96 10:58:25 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Failing not to be unsuccessful in not being unclear, Sarah Norman wrote: * * >No, no, no, no! Salman, you miss the whole point of Socrates' argument. * * Yo, Steve! Would it kill you to be a little polite? Oh, no! I'm sorry Sarah and Salman and everyone else; I did not mean to be offensive or insulting at all. Perhaps I forget that over e-mail you can't hear my tone of voice -- if you had, then you would have surely realized that it's just a friendly disagreement, nothing more. Being obnoxious is the farthest thing from my mind. My apologies, Steven ______________________ steven morgan friedman http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~smfriedm Mean People Suck From books-owner Tue Feb 6 17:26:46 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA14727 for books-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 17:26:45 GMT Received: from mail1.sas.upenn.edu (smfriedm@MAIL1.SAS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.26.32]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA49791 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 12:26:42 -0500 Received: (from smfriedm@localhost) by mail1.sas.upenn.edu (8.7.3/SAS 8.05) id MAA10733 for books@ccat; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 12:27:08 -0500 (EST) From: smfriedm@sas.upenn.edu (steven morgan friedman) Posted-Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 12:27:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199602061727.MAA10733@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: we're wired! To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 12:27:08 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Nicholas Negroponte's essay in this month's *Wired* magazine addresses -- very eloquently -- many of the same issues we've been talking about in class and on the listserv. It's called, "The Future of the Book" and you should definitely read it. Actually, in a few weeks this issue will be put online, as *Wired* always does with it's old issues, and then we'll all be able to read it online :) Steven ______________________ steven morgan friedman http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~smfriedm Mean People Suck From books-owner Tue Feb 6 19:19:01 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA23731 for books-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 19:18:58 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA27812 for books; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 14:18:50 -0500 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199602061918.OAA27812@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: Written Word : Inferior ??? (fwd) To: books Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 14:18:49 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1476 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Would Socrates argue that the encounter recorded here proves the inferiority of the (e-)written word? steven morgan friedman wrote: From books-owner Tue Feb 6 16:02:49 1996 From: smfriedm@sas.upenn.edu (steven morgan friedman) Posted-Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 11:02:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199602061602.LAA15275@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: Written Word : Inferior ??? To: snorman@sas.upenn.edu (Sarah Norman) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 11:02:49 -0500 (EST) Cc: smfriedm@sas.upenn.edu, books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu In-Reply-To: <199602061556.KAA13166@mail2.sas.upenn.edu> from "Sarah Norman" at Feb 6, 96 10:58:25 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Failing not to be unsuccessful in not being unclear, Sarah Norman wrote: * * >No, no, no, no! Salman, you miss the whole point of Socrates' argument. * * Yo, Steve! Would it kill you to be a little polite? Oh, no! I'm sorry Sarah and Salman and everyone else; I did not mean to be offensive or insulting at all. Perhaps I forget that over e-mail you can't hear my tone of voice -- if you had, then you would have surely realized that it's just a friendly disagreement, nothing more. Being obnoxious is the farthest thing from my mind. My apologies, Steven ______________________ steven morgan friedman http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~smfriedm Mean People Suck From books-owner Tue Feb 6 19:47:39 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA49969 for books-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 19:47:36 GMT Received: from futures.wharton.upenn.edu (FUTURES.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU [130.91.163.132]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA07460 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 14:47:25 -0500 Received: (from correa69@localhost) by futures.wharton.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA17012 for books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 14:47:52 -0500 From: David Correa Message-Id: <199602061947.OAA17012@futures.wharton.upenn.edu> Subject: Written Word To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 14:47:51 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1800 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk In our analysis of the written word, one of its aspects that is of particular interest to me is the permanence of the written word. Depending on the piece of writing this feature can be either desirable or undesirable. In our legal system written contracts are considered to be the most powerful, holding precedence over oral contracts. It is even the case that certain contacts can not be considered enforceable unless they are put down in writing. The rational for the superiority of the written word is that there is permanent physical evidence. However in a different context this sense of permanence is not looked upon so favorably. Plato is wary of this as he points out in Socrates saying "once a thing is committed to writing it circulates equally among those who understand the subject and those who have no business with it; reading can not distinguish between suitable and unsuitable readers" Taken one step further, there is no knowing how future generations will look upon a piece of writing, especially given its purpose. Although it could be argued that the impact that a piece of writing could have on future generations should not be considered in its composition one can not deny the fact that as long as something is written down and stored away it can have an effect on future generations. My point goes back to our discussion in class on Thursday. Aware of the unpredictable effect that the written word will have on the reader, and its permanence Plato chose to write Phaedrus in a manner that he thought could best overcome these problems. However this same sense of permanence is a desirable quality in other types of writing, and that is why it is so prominent in all aspects of society, American contract law being just one example. From books-owner Tue Feb 6 22:00:21 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA43380 for books-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 22:00:17 GMT Received: from mail1.sas.upenn.edu (smfriedm@MAIL1.SAS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.26.32]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA48098; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 16:59:58 -0500 Received: (from smfriedm@localhost) by mail1.sas.upenn.edu (8.7.3/SAS 8.05) id RAA15723; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 17:00:23 -0500 (EST) From: smfriedm@sas.upenn.edu (steven morgan friedman) Posted-Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 17:00:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199602062200.RAA15723@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: Written Word : Inferior ??? (fwd) To: jod@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (James O'Donnell) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 17:00:22 -0500 (EST) Cc: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu In-Reply-To: <199602061918.OAA27812@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> from "James O'Donnell" at Feb 6, 96 02:18:49 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Failing not to be unsuccessful in not being unclear, James O'Donnell wrote: * * Would Socrates argue that the encounter recorded here proves the * inferiority of the (e-)written word? * * steven morgan friedman wrote: * * Oh, no! I'm sorry Sarah and Salman and everyone else; I did not mean to * be offensive or insulting at all. Perhaps I forget that over e-mail you * can't hear my tone of voice -- if you had, then you would have surely * realized that it's just a friendly disagreement, nothing more. Being * obnoxious is the farthest thing from my mind. This would support his argument that the spoken word is superior. Separately, I just want to make a slightly tangential point on Sameer's mention (I think it was Sameer) of Nostradamus in class. I am a strong support of Nostradamus, even though sometimes his words are distorted, and I don't want you all to get a negative impression of him because of Sameer's comments. Nostradamus has often proven to be right on specific points. My favorite example is that he said that there will be a fight in Spain between Franco and Rivera. In the original old French, he mentioned all three (Spain, Franco, and Rivera) specifically *by name* (without making the name cryptic, like he sometimes did, and as you pointed out, Sameer). For those of you who don't know, General Francisco Franco's main Republican opponent in the Spanish Civil War (of 1933) was Primo de Rivera. If you are interested, I have put this verse of his, with an English translation, commentary, and references, online at: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~smfriedm/nostradamus.html Steven ______________________ steven morgan friedman http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~smfriedm Mean People Suck From books-owner Tue Feb 6 22:04:17 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA47044 for books-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 22:04:07 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA49793 for books; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 17:03:50 -0500 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199602062203.RAA49793@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: nostradamus To: books Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 17:03:49 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 356 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk much interesting stuff there on S's page, but I'll be skeptical. If I punctuate and capitalize slightly differently, I get some people coming out of the French castle meeting people from the Riviera. Am I right? History of this kind of unofficial text with multiple interpretations is a fascinating subject apposite to this course in its own right. From books-owner Wed Feb 7 01:49:59 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09226 for books-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 01:49:53 GMT Received: from central.cis.upenn.edu (CENTRAL.CIS.UPENN.EDU [158.130.12.2]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA11260 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 20:49:49 -0500 Received: from home.seas.upenn.edu (root@HOME.SEAS.UPENN.EDU [130.91.7.82]) by central.cis.upenn.edu (8.6.12/UPenn 1.4) with ESMTP id UAA01077; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 20:50:15 -0500 Received: from [130.91.172.55] by home.seas.upenn.edu id UAA07874; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 20:50:14 -0500 Posted-Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 20:50:14 -0500 X-Sender: rourkem@postoffice.seas.upenn.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 20:50:14 -0500 To: David Correa From: rourkem@seas.upenn.edu (Rourke McNamara) Subject: Re: Written Word Cc: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk >However in a different context this sense of permanence is not looked >upon so favorably. Plato is wary of this as he points out in Socrates >saying > >"once a thing is committed to writing it circulates equally among those >who understand the subject and those who have no business with it; >reading can not distinguish between suitable and unsuitable readers" > >Taken one step further, there is no knowing how future generations will >look upon a piece of writing, especially given its purpose. Although it >could be argued that the impact that a piece of writing could have on >future generations should not be considered in its composition one can >not deny the fact that as long as something is written down and stored >away it can have an effect on future generations. More importantly, the author no longer has control over who reads what he has written down. The author is no longer responsible for what his writings teach people and what people do with what they learn from his writings. This is especially important today when certain knowledge can be harmfull and dangerous in the hands of the 'wrong' people. Nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and ordinary bombs are examples of this. Publishing companies and books stores tend to make sure that truly dangerous things don't end up in the hands of people who shouldn't have access to them. Children can't just go down to Barnes and Nobles and pick up a copy of a bomb construction manual. The internet and the electronic meduim is changing this, though. There are web sites and anonymous ftp sites where one can pick up suck things as the "Terrorists Handbook". Of course, this isn't new to the internet. 10 years ago these files were available on small, privatly run, computer bulletin boards across the country. Who is responsible for damage that gets done becuase irresponsible people have access to such information? Only the people who do the damage, I would suppose. Regulation of infomation isn't really possible or advisable in this day and age. One of the characters in Michael Chrichton's _Jurassic Park_ commented on this. As most of you know, that book revolves around geneticists 'bringing back' dinosaurs using genetic engineering technology. One character in the book argues that technology today allows young researchers to make breakthroughs and do things that they don't quite have the resposibility or wisdom to understand. The geneticists in the book 'bring back' the dinosaurs by 'standing on the shoulders of giants'. They use technology that they don't quite understand the implications of. This is compared to the difference between a practitioner of the martial arts and a common thug with a gun. The black belt in Whatever martial art has spent years learning his art and whatever wisdom his teacher feels should go along with it. He has an ability to kill or cause damage but he has earned it and he has learned much getting to that point. The common thug can pick up a gun and suddently he has the power to kill - only there is no knowledge or wisdom that comes with the purchase of the gun. Rourke McNamara From books-owner Wed Feb 7 01:59:36 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03233 for books-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 01:59:36 GMT Received: from central.cis.upenn.edu (CENTRAL.CIS.UPENN.EDU [158.130.12.2]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA07835 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 20:59:28 -0500 Received: from home.seas.upenn.edu (root@HOME.SEAS.UPENN.EDU [130.91.7.82]) by central.cis.upenn.edu (8.6.12/UPenn 1.4) with ESMTP id UAA01412; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 20:59:54 -0500 Received: from [130.91.172.55] by home.seas.upenn.edu id UAA08693; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 20:59:52 -0500 Posted-Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 20:59:52 -0500 X-Sender: rourkem@postoffice.seas.upenn.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 20:59:52 -0500 To: snorman@sas.upenn.edu (Sarah Norman) From: rourkem@seas.upenn.edu (Rourke McNamara) Subject: Re: Written Word : Inferior ??? Cc: smfriedm@sas.upenn.edu (steven morgan friedman), books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk At 10:58 2/6/96, Sarah Norman wrote: >>No, no, no, no! Salman, you miss the whole point of Socrates' argument. > >Yo, Steve! Would it kill you to be a little polite? Sarah - I'm curious what prompted this response. How did you interpret that line of Steven's message when you read it? I ask becuase we're having a discussion here where - to a limited extent - different people are trying to convince others of their viewpoints. In such discussions it would seem normal to me for one person to tell another that he thinks the other's point is 'wrong'. I guess Steve could have written: "No, no, no, no! Salman, I think you're missing the whole point of Socrates' argument." But its assumed that what Steven writes is his opinion and it weakens his argument when he phrases it in the above fashion. From books-owner Wed Feb 7 18:17:39 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA12751 for books-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 18:17:38 GMT Received: from netnews.upenn.edu (NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.35.31]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA25025 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 13:17:31 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by netnews.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA25911 for books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 13:17:43 -0500 Path: netnews.upenn.edu!futures.wharton.upenn.edu!blechn87 From: blechn87@futures.wharton.upenn.edu (Olivier Blechner) Newsgroups: upenn.classics.cultbook Subject: Newsgroup Date: 7 Feb 1996 18:17:42 GMT Organization: University of Pennsylvania Lines: 13 Message-ID: <4faqc6$kn@netnews.upenn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: futures.wharton.upenn.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2-upenn1.1] Apparently-To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Hi, I don't know if I'm the only one experiencing this problem, but the newsgroup seems to not contain any of the recent posts. It is definitely not a problem with my tin, so what's wrong? \ob\ -- Olivier Blechner | "A good question is never answered. It is not a matador linguistico | bolt to be tightened into place but a seed to be UPenn Wharton Cl' of 1998 | planted and to bear more seed toward the hope of Finance/OPIM | greening the landscape of idea." --John Ciardi From books-owner Wed Feb 7 18:28:44 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA34384 for books-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 18:28:43 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA08518; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 13:28:38 -0500 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199602071828.NAA08518@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: Newsgroup To: blechn87@futures.wharton.upenn.edu (Olivier Blechner) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 13:28:38 -0500 (EST) Cc: books In-Reply-To: <4faqc6$kn@netnews.upenn.edu> from "Olivier Blechner" at Feb 7, 96 06:17:42 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 335 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk well, the problem is that I haven't found out how to have newsgroup post to list *and* list post to newsgroup without and endless loop. Meng? So my *choice* was to make sure that newsgroup posts got to the list, but that means that list postings don't get to the newsgroup. Suggestions/comments? I just want what works. jo'd From books-owner Wed Feb 7 20:35:12 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA24446 for books-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 20:35:11 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA32627 for books; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 15:35:05 -0500 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199602072035.PAA32627@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: final projects To: books Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 15:35:05 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1099 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Let me suggest two criteria: 1. Do something substantial and interesting to yourself. Find a subject that interests you and work on the presentation of information. You may either create a site, or simply write a paper and post it on the web. 2. EQUALLY important, be prepared to think and talk about the issues that are raised and settled in what you do. If you create an on-line dinosaur museum (see "authenticity and derivation" on the home page), then you will want to include in it a page that expressly discusses how an on-line dinoseum is different from an old-fashioned one, how it's better, how it's worse, and what choices you've had to make in creating one. (Sites don't have to be fully fleshd out with content. If you did the on-line dinoseum, you could have one or two saurs filled in with items from the web, but then set up a torso of the rest of it, just to show how it would be done.) SAMEER's RESPONSIBILITY THURSDAY: to remind me to ask y'all how many need help in learning how to set up web stuff and to work out ways to get you/give you that help. jo'd From books-owner Thu Feb 8 02:38:47 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA15415 for books-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 02:38:46 GMT Received: from mail2.sas.upenn.edu (aromano@MAIL2.SAS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.26.33]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA45859 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 21:38:35 -0500 Received: (from aromano@localhost) by mail2.sas.upenn.edu (8.7.3/SAS 8.05) id VAA28101 for books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 21:39:00 -0500 (EST) From: aromano@sas.upenn.edu (Allen J Romano) Posted-Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 21:39:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199602080239.VAA28101@mail2.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: public and private To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 21:39:00 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk In class we dealt a little bit with the way in which the written and spoken word can be either public or private in different situations. A few of the posts to the listserv recently have touched on this distinction between public and private. For instance, Rourke mentioned that an author of the written word can lose control over what is done with the written word, how it is interpreted, how it is used, how future generations might read into it. It is because the written word has a tendency to be public that these results come about. I think we noted in class that there is a reversal of what we might expect in the _Phaedrus_. We mentioned that the dialouge, though it is private, is now presented in the form of the written word which seems to be public. So also, the Seventh Letter switches the public and private situations. (that is: written word can be public; spoken word can be private and intimate ----- I'm not suggesting that these are absolute relationships, they just seem to be tendencies) The format of a letter would seem to be private. However, the digression in the middle of the letter as we have it published might have been added later. In any case, though, the private letter is now presented in a seemingly public forum. Whether this is falsly private is another issue. Ok, so I was then thinking about how uncomfortable and artificial I have found it to post to this listserv. Is it that this same confusion of what seems to be a private forum with what really is a public forum? Is the newsgroup or the listserv as public as the published word? Isn't there some degree of intimacy or privacy which might put someone off guard? We mentioned before the idea that the internet itself is sort of this 'abstract' world. Well, so also is the form of a book an abstract world. However, is the abstract space of WWW pages and e-mail really a public forum or a private forum? With all the different forms of written and spoken interaction that have arisen from both society and technology, what is the connection between the form the word takes and its other attributes. We have been talking in terms of written vs. spoken. What about speaking in terms of use or in terms of public or private. Is the difference really in the forms of written and spoken or is it in the forms of public and private? Honestly, I'm not sure how to attack this. It just seems like the classifications of written and spoken get so confused once every conceivable form of the written or spoken word starts to be considered. If anyone has any divine inspiration about this, I would very much be interested in understanding it. and if I'm just missing the inspiration, oh well, i'll figure it out eventually. Allen (sorry about the length of the post, but.. oh well...) From books-owner Thu Feb 8 02:42:47 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA41999 for books-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 02:42:45 GMT Received: from mail2.sas.upenn.edu (aromano@MAIL2.SAS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.26.33]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA47364 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 21:42:37 -0500 Received: (from aromano@localhost) by mail2.sas.upenn.edu (8.7.3/SAS 8.05) id VAA29344 for books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 21:43:02 -0500 (EST) From: aromano@sas.upenn.edu (Allen J Romano) Posted-Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 21:43:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199602080243.VAA29344@mail2.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: www site To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 21:43:01 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk We've seen a lot of written text or pictures on the web. Okay, so here is the potential for audio and voice: http://www.dspg.com/internet.html maybe some of you already know about things like this. It's interesting to check out sites that use dynamic audio programs for web pages such as is presented here. They have a list of sites that use their software. Check out the links with Literature and Music pages. (try http://www.cdlink.com/talking books) there's also a banned books site connected to this which is kindof interesting. (I think) Allen From books-owner Thu Feb 8 05:15:23 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA03215 for books-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 05:15:23 GMT Received: from mail1.sas.upenn.edu (dcasteel@MAIL1.SAS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.26.32]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA27273 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 00:15:19 -0500 Received: (from dcasteel@localhost) by mail1.sas.upenn.edu (8.7.3/SAS 8.05) id AAA28688 for books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 00:15:44 -0500 (EST) From: dcasteel@sas.upenn.edu (The Goddess) Posted-Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 00:15:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199602080515.AAA28688@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: WWW Site To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (books) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 00:15:43 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk I just found the coolest thing! it's an interactive "create your own fractal" site. Here's the address: http://www.softlab.ntua.gr/cgi-bin/mandelcgi It also comes along with a gallery of other works that previous visitors have made. In a way it is similar to the coloring book that we previously saw, but I think it is different for several reasons. I argued that there are psychological implications to the lack of imperfection in the coloring book. What does it teach a child if everything he or she does turns out to be perfect? How does that child learn to correct or, at best, deal with mistakes. Additionally, what sort of statement are we making about the importance of creativity here? What if a child wants to color everything outside of the lines and leave everything on the inside blank? That might be how the child perceives his or her's way to claim authorship of the drawing. And mixing colors? You could only pick one color and fill in the space with that one on the web coloring book. I'll come back to the authorship idea in a minute. Let me ramble on about this site first. Fractals are a continual repetition of the same pattern to infinity ( I think). a snowflake is a fractal. This specific fractal, the mandelbrot was discovered by some guy. I think it exists in nature. (if somebody else knows the history on this one, fill me in. I did a project on these in high school and I don't remember anything now.) As far as this site goes, these "works of art" already exist. The only creating involved in it is finding the piece that you like the most, the one that you want to interpret as being aesthetically pleasing to you. But I think it is comprable to the coloring book, in that it's the creation of "art" over the web. What kind of statement does that make? Does that limit or expand the boundaries of authorship/ownership? On to authorship: What is it? Who owns it? Does Phaedrus become an author of Lysias speech because he read it, with his own interpretation and inflection? Does Prof. O'Donnell own TS Eliot's poems because he recorded his own reading on tapes, with his vocal interpretation? Sure, at some point, there are legal boundaries that exist, due to copyright laws and such. But isn't it possible to transcend written ownership if the work exists outside of the realm of printed material? If somebody responds to this post and copies part of it into theirs, do they own what I said? What about sig files? Tori Amos wrote those words in mine, but I cut and paste them and put them where I wanted them to be. I own my signature, I created it. Do I own those words, or the song that they came from? there are tonz of holes in these arguments, I see them myself. But there are plenty of ways to defend both sides of the questions. What do y'all think. Am I just rambling senslessly....yadda...yadda...yadda....? Later, Di -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "I got a bowling ball in my stomach I got a desert in my mouth figures that my COURAGE would choose to sell out now" -TORI Diane Casteel CAS 1998 NEC Vice-Chair for Feedback Houston Hall Marketing Coordinator Spring Fling '96 Marketing Co-Chair ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From books-owner Thu Feb 8 05:25:13 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13418 for books-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 05:25:12 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA13924; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 00:25:09 -0500 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199602080525.AAA13924@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: WWW Site To: dcasteel@sas.upenn.edu (The Goddess) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 00:25:08 -0500 (EST) Cc: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu In-Reply-To: <199602080515.AAA28688@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> from "The Goddess" at Feb 8, 96 00:15:43 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 144 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk now, *my* question is, when you read Diane's posting, how many of you noticed *where* those Mandelbrot fractals were going to come from? jo'd From books-owner Thu Feb 8 19:19:09 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA15010 for books-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 19:19:07 GMT Received: from central.cis.upenn.edu (CENTRAL.CIS.UPENN.EDU [158.130.12.2]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA20634 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 14:19:04 -0500 Received: from stipple.seas.upenn.edu (sameerm@STIPPLE.SEAS.UPENN.EDU [130.91.4.105]) by central.cis.upenn.edu (8.6.12/UPenn 1.4) with ESMTP id OAA14636 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 14:19:30 -0500 Received: (from sameerm@localhost) by stipple.seas.upenn.edu (8.6.10) id OAA08662 for books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 14:19:28 -0500 Posted-Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 14:19:28 -0500 Message-Id: <199602081919.OAA08662@stipple.seas.upenn.edu> Subject: Long live the word! To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (CLST 158 listserv) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 14:19:27 -0500 (EST) From: "Sameer Y. Merchant" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2871 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk First I would like to mention that Steve's (?) example in Tuesday's class about the spell checker was totally moot and completely invalid. ;) Technical point but a spell checker does not correct the words for you. When it comes across a word not in its dictionary, it offers you a list of alternative words. This list, like the spell checker dictionary, is never complete and still requires you to choose the right word or provide one of your own (if you decide that your word was mispelt in the first place) so you do still have to know how to spell. The primary function of the checker is to detect typographical errors. Technicalities aside, I do agree that devices such as calculators do lead to the 'wearing away' of certain abilities. But is that a Bad Thing (TM)? I think not. Plato has Socrates argue that writing is bad because it weakens the memory. I would argue that the technologies I have mentioned free our minds from the burden of boring, repetitive, unrewarding tasks, open us fascinating new worlds of possibilities and allow us to use our intellects for Greater Things. To illustrate my point more vividly, recall that before the advent of writing, any given poem or talk was memorized by a number of people who, over the course of their lives would need to keep rememorizing what they'd learned in order to prevent it's being distorted or fading away, 'wasting' _enormous_ amounts of time and energy in the process. And knowledge would be lost at the end of each generation, unless the work was rememorized. I am reminded here of the 'kingdom' of the Red Queen (Lewis Carroll) where one had to keep running just to remain in the same place. I don't see this world as a good model on which to base ours. Finally, in an oral culture, inaccuracies turn up at every corner and there is no original to compare the myriad versions of any given work against. It is doubtful that even the original author of a work of any length would have a faultless recall of his or her own work. To those who argue that the general theme of the work would be preserved at least, I say that even the changing of a single word can sometimes greatly affect the interpretation of a sentence and enough of them can dramatically alter the interpretation of an entire work (loosen the right nail and the kingdom shall fall). The possibility of this is greatly increased by the fact that the person who memorizes the work has his or her own interpretation of the work. This interpretation may unconsciously affect what he or she remembers and forgets (selective amnesia?) and thus the rendition one hears is the reciter's and not necessarily the author's. There is nothing quite as impartial as the written word: it holds no opinions of it own and imposes no views, and it remembers perfectly for the duration of its useful life. Long live the word, Sameer From books-owner Thu Feb 8 19:36:39 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA16965 for books-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 19:36:39 GMT Received: from futures.wharton.upenn.edu (FUTURES.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU [130.91.163.132]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA39743 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 14:36:34 -0500 Received: (from correa69@localhost) by futures.wharton.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA18784 for books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 14:36:59 -0500 From: David Correa Message-Id: <199602081936.OAA18784@futures.wharton.upenn.edu> Subject: web site To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 14:36:59 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 190 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk My web site for this week is the web museum at http://sunsite.unc.edu/wm It is a starting point from which one can go on to explore numerous works of art from around the world. David From books-owner Fri Feb 9 06:32:39 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA08292 for books-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 06:32:38 GMT Received: from netnews.upenn.edu (NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.35.31]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA08543 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 01:32:32 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by netnews.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA10416 for books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 01:32:44 -0500 Path: netnews.upenn.edu!mail2.sas.upenn.edu!bwyche From: bwyche@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Benjamin Wyche) Newsgroups: upenn.classics.cultbook Subject: Re: Newsgroup Date: 9 Feb 1996 06:32:43 GMT Organization: University of Pennsylvania Lines: 24 Message-ID: <4fepqb$e3f@netnews.upenn.edu> References: <4faqc6$kn@netnews.upenn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: mail2.sas.upenn.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2-upenn1.3] Apparently-To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Olivier Blechner (blechn87@futures.wharton.upenn.edu) wrote: : Hi, "Offer it for me too, Socrates; friends should share everything" -Phaedrus, finale -- Ben Wyche (215)/417-6972 "I read http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~bwyche" $@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@ Leave out the fiction, The fact is -- This friction Can only be worn by persistence... Leave out conditions, Courageous convictions Will drag the dream ...Into existence -Neil Peart, "Vital Signs" Rush, _Moving Pictures_ $@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@ From books-owner Fri Feb 9 07:00:49 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA21391 for books-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 07:00:48 GMT Received: from netnews.upenn.edu (NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.35.31]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA12426 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 02:00:45 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by netnews.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09822 for books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 02:00:56 -0500 Path: netnews.upenn.edu!mail2.sas.upenn.edu!bwyche From: bwyche@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Benjamin Wyche) Newsgroups: upenn.classics.cultbook Subject: Call of the Computer Date: 9 Feb 1996 07:00:55 GMT Organization: University of Pennsylvania Lines: 79 Message-ID: <4ferf7$e3f@netnews.upenn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: mail2.sas.upenn.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2-upenn1.3] Apparently-To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk In an interesting paraphrase of Plato's Phaedrus, Walter Ong writes in his book "Orality and Literacy:The Technologizing of the Word (1982, Routledge, London and New York)", on pg 79 that Writing, Plato has Socrates say in the Phaedrus, is inhuman, pretending to establish outside the mind what in reality can be only in the mind. It is a thing, a manufactured product. _The same of course is said of computers._ Says who? I think Ong is specifically referring to the section which reads: And as for wisdom, your pupils will have the reputation for it without the reality: they will recieve a quantity of information without proper instruction, and in consequence be thought very knowledgeable when they are for the most part ignorant. And because they they are filled with the conceit of wisdom instead of real wisdom they will be a burden to society. -Phaedrus, 78-79 I'm going to go out on a limb, and not make an elongated post out of this. Instead, I shall pose a few questions, and see how far this post goes to becoming a memorable dialogue. PHAEDRUS: "A magnificent theory, Socrates, I agree, if one could put it into practice." SOCRATES: "It is noble to aim at a noble goal, whatever the outcome." -Phaedrus, 95 If the rest of my splendid classmates cannot join me in this conversation, I shall be coerced into talking to my invisible pals (aka "the gods") or switch into a free section of Sociology 69: "OPIM & Social Deviance"... The question has often been raised concerning the naturalness of computer-mediated communication, and posed as such: Does communication through computers have a dehumanizing, unnatural effect? Isn't it better to talk to people the NATURAL way -- face-to-face? Yet another -- Will love of computers produce the same kind of romantic madness in educators once they discover computers can be used as a learning tool? Do computers actually provide a better means of communicating knowledge than the tools that Socrates and Thomas Jefferson learned with? Are computers "unnatural" -- i.e. cold, mechnical, don't grow on trees (like money); or are they one of the highest forms of the natural --i.e. a combination of many elements preextant in the universe before human kind, but never molded together for a supreme purpose of the human mind? -- Ben Wyche (215)/417-6972 "I read http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~bwyche" $@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@ Leave out the fiction, The fact is -- This friction Can only be worn by persistence... Leave out conditions, Courageous convictions Will drag the dream ...Into existence -Neil Peart, "Vital Signs" Rush, _Moving Pictures_ $@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@ From books-owner Sat Feb 10 02:17:56 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA25529 for books-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 1996 02:17:50 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA36532 for books; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 21:17:47 -0500 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199602100217.VAA36532@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: bidirectional newsgroup/list (fwd) To: books Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 21:17:47 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 3429 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk OK guys, let's see if this works. I've set it up so that: if you post to newsgroup it actually goes *first* to listserv and then automatically to newsgroup if you post to list it goes to list and then to newsgroup So this *should* be bidirectional. If you are reading 150 copies of this message, we goofed again. William H. Magill wrote: From magill@isc.upenn.edu Sat Feb 10 02:06:29 1996 Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 21:06:53 -0500 From: "William H. Magill" Message-Id: <199602100206.VAA01515@staff.dccs.upenn.edu> To: mengwong@icg.resnet.upenn.edu CC: news@netnews.upenn.edu, jod@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Subject: Re: bidirectional newsgroup/list > the mailing list books@ccat.sas is supposed to > bidirectionally gate to upenn.classics.cultbook. > > endless loops seem to happen, though. > > is there a solution? > > > Forwarded message: > From books-owner@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Wed Feb 7 13:36:45 1996 > Posted-Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 13:36:42 -0500 (EST) > From: "James O'Donnell" > Subject: Re: Newsgroup > To: blechn87@futures.wharton.upenn.edu (Olivier Blechner) > Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 13:28:38 -0500 (EST) > Cc: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu > > well, the problem is that I haven't found out how to have newsgroup post > to list *and* list post to newsgroup without and endless loop. Meng? So > my *choice* was to make sure that newsgroup posts got to the list, but > that means that list postings don't get to the newsgroup. > Suggestions/comments? I just want what works. > > jo'd upenn.classics.cultbook was requested as an unmoderated group gatewayed to a mailing list with a mail hook. If you include the mail hook address in your mailing list, you WILL get loops. This is the primary reason why newsgroups and mailing lists gateways are tightly controlled, and generally frowned upon. I have changed the group to moderated, and pointed the moderator at "books@ccat.sas." The "mail hook" no longer exists. Change/insert the newsgroup address in the mailing list to be: upenn-classics-cultbook-post@netnews.upenn.edu Any posting to the news group will NOT be posted in the newsgroup, but rather forwarded to the mailing list. Any maling listing item (including the forwarded postings) will be posted to the newsgroup, because the "-post" address is a member of the mailing list. Anyone wishing to use mail to post to the newsgroup MUST mail to the mailing list address... books@ccat.sas. They do not have to be a member of the list, unless it is a restricted listserv list. (If they mail to the -post address, it will NOT be sent back to the mailing list.) This should work as soon as you add the "-post" address to the mailing list. ... Keep in mind - a moderated news group is NOT restricted in such a way that the moderator is the only one who can post to it. News does not work that way. Anyone who knows how to moderate a group can post to any moderated news group. The process is trivial and well documented on the Internet. Penn's mail hooks exploit this aspect of netnews. There SHOULD NOT be a way to post to news from mail. It is not conceptually part of the Usenet news system. This is the reason why no "upenn." newsgroup can be exported off the netnews.upenn.edu server. The consequences would be the propigation of your mail loop to hundreds or thousands of computers worldwide. From books-owner Mon Feb 12 06:20:59 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA47639 for books-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 06:20:57 GMT Received: from netnews.upenn.edu (NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.35.31]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA56334 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 01:20:51 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by netnews.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA20860; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 01:21:00 -0500 To: mod-upenn-classics-cultbook@netnews.upenn.edu Path: mail2.sas.upenn.edu!bwyche From: bwyche@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Benjamin Wyche) Newsgroups: upenn.classics.cultbook Subject: Re: Call of the Computer Date: 12 Feb 1996 06:20:59 GMT Organization: University of Pennsylvania Lines: 101 Message-ID: <4fmm8b$ia9@netnews.upenn.edu> References: <4ferf7$e3f@netnews.upenn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: mail2.sas.upenn.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2-upenn1.3] Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Benjamin Wyche (bwyche@mail2.sas.upenn.edu) wrote: : I'm going to go out on a limb, and not make an elongated post : out of this. Instead, I shall pose a few questions, and : see how far this post goes to becoming a memorable dialogue. : If the rest of my splendid classmates cannot join me in this : conversation, I shall be coerced into talking to my invisible : pals (aka "the gods") or switch into a free section of : Sociology 69: "OPIM & Social Deviance"... OK. No responses. Please don't be shy. Let me show you how it's done... : The question has often been raised concerning the : naturalness of computer-mediated communication, and posed : as such: : Does communication through computers have : a dehumanizing, unnatural effect? Isn't it better : to talk to people the NATURAL way -- face-to-face? I think that authors such as Walter Ong aren't forward enough looking when they say "moving into the exciting world of literacy means leaving behind much that is exciting and deeply loved in the earlier oral world. We have to die to continue living." Walter Ong, _Orality & Literacy_, pg 15 To me, this view sets up an unnecessary dichtomy between communication through the means granted to every human by their existence as a physical entity and the technology humans use to enhance that communication. In other words, our bodies provide a basic means of communicating our thoughts -- use of our mouths, hands, etc -- and we can use other elements of the world to enhance our speech -- pencils, painting, computers, etc.) The idea that technology (writing) necessarily sacrifices some our capacity for "truly human communication" isn't necessarily so. It is only the particular technology that we are using that determines the intellectual, emotional, and spiritual qualities that we experience when we are communicating. The printed word, (literate communication) among other advantages, can be communicated over and over again with no effort on the part of the original author, and can be commented upon and easily referenced without too much scrolling. (This is in contrast to a videotape or tape recorder, which, while easily reproduceable, have to be constantly scrolled through.) The spoken word, (oral communication), conveys meaning not only through the word itself, but through tonality or gestures at the time of speaking. -- For example, I could say "Fuck This Shit" and without the accompanying context of my laughter, anger, or tongue in my cheek, the one communicated to might become somewhat frustrated. Critics like Ong feel that oral communication has emotional and contextual properties that may _never_ be reproduced outside of our physical bodies. I tend to disagree, being very optimistic about and hungry for advances in both technology and art. Ideally, we will be able to not only reproduce the ideas and general feel of the emotional/physical context of our speech, but virtually the reality of the communicative properties of our bodies, ourselves. Oops. Is that virtual reality? I, for one, think that "virtual reality" will not fade as a faddish dream of the nineties or sci-fi or the twentieth century. If human beings are to "take what is heavy and raise it up into the region above, where the gods dwell", they will need to take themselves there. At the risk of crossing the bridge of the future before I come to it, I hypothesize that space travel and the environment of strange parts of the universe would necessitate advances in technology and expressive communication such that the farther away from home we go, the greater the need to reproduce it for sanity's sake. I shall continue talking about this issue if other members of our class' virtual community are similiar intrigued by the directions our manipulation of the world can aid us in understanding ourselves. Think about it. Thanks. Is virtual reality practical in today's world? Is there a better subject of conversation? A better line of reasoning? Ben Wyche (215)/417-6972 "I read http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~bwyche" $@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@ Leave out the fiction, The fact is -- This friction Can only be worn by persistence... Leave out conditions, Courageous convictions Will drag the dream ...Into existence -Neil Peart, "Vital Signs" Rush, _Moving Pictures_ $@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@ From books-owner Mon Feb 12 06:35:49 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28633 for books-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 06:35:48 GMT Received: from netnews.upenn.edu (NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.35.31]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA53204 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 01:35:43 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by netnews.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA30703; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 01:35:53 -0500 To: mod-upenn-classics-cultbook@netnews.upenn.edu Path: mail2.sas.upenn.edu!bwyche From: bwyche@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Benjamin Wyche) Newsgroups: upenn.classics.cultbook Subject: Moderated? Unadulerated? Date: 12 Feb 1996 06:35:52 GMT Organization: University of Pennsylvania Lines: 30 Message-ID: <4fmn48$8a3@netnews.upenn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: mail2.sas.upenn.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2-upenn1.3] Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk What does a moderated newsgroup entail for our class? I try to post something and I get the reply "This is a moderated newsgroup-- continue (y/n)?" What's going on here? Am I going to be exterminated if I continue on in the wrong direction? Oh do we need to know "when to speak and when to refrain" and "when to employ and when to eschew the various rhetorical devices of conciseness and pathos and exaggeration and so on" (Phaedrus, pg 92)... i.e. no more "Fuck This Shit"? Does anyone in our class actually care if the newsgroup is moderated... -- Ben Wyche (215)/417-6972 "I read http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~bwyche" $@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@ Leave out the fiction, The fact is -- This friction Can only be worn by persistence... Leave out conditions, Courageous convictions Will drag the dream ...Into existence -Neil Peart, "Vital Signs" Rush, _Moving Pictures_ $@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@ From books-owner Mon Feb 12 06:52:45 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA52323 for books-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 06:52:39 GMT Received: from netnews.upenn.edu (NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.35.31]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA31070 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 01:52:35 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by netnews.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA08422; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 01:52:45 -0500 To: mod-upenn-classics-cultbook@netnews.upenn.edu Path: mail2.sas.upenn.edu!bwyche From: bwyche@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Benjamin Wyche) Newsgroups: upenn.classics.cultbook Subject: Is Meng's site cool? Date: 12 Feb 1996 06:52:44 GMT Organization: University of Pennsylvania Lines: 43 Message-ID: <4fmo3s$8a3@netnews.upenn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: mail2.sas.upenn.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2-upenn1.3] Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Note: Our classmate Meng qua Meng is cool; no one questions that fact. My question concerns his WWW homepage _site_. Can we call it "cool"? We have been selecting "Cool Site of the Week" homepages primarily on the basis of their visual properties or outstanding qualities (e.g. "The Church of the Subgenius" or "Talking Books" page. Meng Weng Wong's homepage (http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~mengwong/) proudly proclaims on the "Editorial" link: "What's here is almost all text and no graphics; excessive inlining is silly. Remember, colourful splashes may wow people once, but text soberly considered keeps its value forever." How specifically might we consider a page without pictures "cool"? We really wouldn't be looking for the actual features of the page itself, but rather the ideas and links that the page contains. Does the substance take precedence over the style? We would be entering the realm of normative philosophy and exiting that of aesthetics. If we start judging pages solely by _what_ they say, then the class becomes an exercise in literary criticism and ideological debate. Let's not flame. Therefore, any page can have text features but what makes a page like Meng's "cool" is... (fill in the blank -- any takers?) -- Ben Wyche (215)/417-6972 "I read http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~bwyche" $@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@ Leave out the fiction, The fact is -- This friction Can only be worn by persistence... Leave out conditions, Courageous convictions Will drag the dream ...Into existence -Neil Peart, "Vital Signs" Rush, _Moving Pictures_ $@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@ From books-owner Mon Feb 12 07:29:28 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA53226 for books-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 07:29:27 GMT Received: from netnews.upenn.edu (NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.35.31]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA51173 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 02:29:20 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by netnews.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09870; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 02:29:30 -0500 To: mod-upenn-classics-cultbook@netnews.upenn.edu Path: mail2.sas.upenn.edu!bwyche From: bwyche@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Benjamin Wyche) Newsgroups: upenn.classics.cultbook Subject: Re: Is Meng's site cool? Date: 12 Feb 1996 07:29:28 GMT Organization: University of Pennsylvania Lines: 5 Message-ID: <4fmq8o$116@netnews.upenn.edu> References: <4fmo3s$8a3@netnews.upenn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: mail2.sas.upenn.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2-upenn1.3] Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk I didn't see "the Goddess" on the newsgroup -- is the listserver working properly? P.S. I hate Beavis and Butthead more than you can imagine... From books-owner Mon Feb 12 09:46:33 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA28335 for books-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 09:46:32 GMT Received: from icg.resnet.upenn.edu (mengwong@ICG.RESNET.UPENN.EDU [130.91.192.190]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA28842 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 04:46:28 -0500 Received: (from mengwong@localhost) by icg.resnet.upenn.edu (8.6.11/8.6.9) id EAA11536 for books@ccat.sas; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 04:46:51 -0500 Message-Id: <199602120946.EAA11536@icg.resnet.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: Is Meng's site cool? To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 04:46:51 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <4fmo3s$8a3@netnews.upenn.edu> from "Benjamin Wyche" at Feb 12, 96 06:52:44 am From: mengwong@icg.resnet.upenn.edu (Meng Weng Wong) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1256 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Ben writes: | | We really wouldn't be looking for the actual features of the page | itself, but rather the ideas and links that the page contains. Does the | substance take precedence over the style? We would be entering the | realm of normative philosophy and exiting that of aesthetics. If we | start judging pages solely by _what_ they say, then the class becomes an | exercise in literary criticism and ideological debate. Let's not flame. | Therefore, any page can have text features but what makes a page like Meng's | "cool" is... | | (fill in the blank -- any takers?) ... the fact that it can sit, obviously and quite shamefully unchanged for the better part of a year, yet still retain value for readers? not entirely, i don't think ... closer to the truth, perhaps, is that the casual browser, impressed by the long download time and relative length in this world of one-page web pages, is intimidated by its unwieldy bulk in the same way that the unabridged shakespeare and the complete tolstoy sit unread on my bookshelf and terrify me :) And Ben, why do you consider normative philosophy and aesthetics incompatible? Is there no intersection at all? Don't tell me you just invented the opposition for dramatic effect. :) meng From books-owner Mon Feb 12 10:16:33 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA59452 for books-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 10:16:32 GMT Received: from icg.resnet.upenn.edu (mengwong@ICG.RESNET.UPENN.EDU [130.91.192.190]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA58935 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 05:16:29 -0500 Received: (from mengwong@localhost) by icg.resnet.upenn.edu (8.6.11/8.6.9) id FAA11928 for books@ccat.sas; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 05:16:52 -0500 Message-Id: <199602121016.FAA11928@icg.resnet.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: Call of the Computer To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 05:16:52 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <4fmm8b$ia9@netnews.upenn.edu> from "Benjamin Wyche" at Feb 12, 96 06:20:59 am From: mengwong@icg.resnet.upenn.edu (Meng Weng Wong) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 5901 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Benjamin Wyche (bwyche@mail2.sas.upenn.edu) wrote in reply to himself: | : I'm going to go out on a limb, and not make an elongated post | : out of this. Instead, I shall pose a few questions, and | : see how far this post goes to becoming a memorable dialogue. it must have missed a turn somewhere -- when i picked up the thread it was well on its way to being a memorable monologue. :) hope y'all don't mind if i steer it back ... | : If the rest of my splendid classmates cannot join me in this | : conversation, I shall be coerced into talking to my invisible | : pals (aka "the gods") or switch into a free section of | : Sociology 69: "OPIM & Social Deviance"... | | OK. No responses. Please don't be shy. Let me show you how it's | done... ah. let's cross our arms and watch, then. | : The question has often been raised concerning the | : naturalness of computer-mediated communication, and posed | : as such: | | : Does communication through computers have | : a dehumanizing, unnatural effect? Isn't it better | : to talk to people the NATURAL way -- face-to-face? how unnatural is it to ask a question, wait for answers, and, hearing none, answer it yourself? it doesn't happen very much. in fact, as far as i can tell, this autosocratic method gets frequent usage in only one setting: the classroom. teacher asks a question, looks around, sees blank faces with the same expression: not me. don't ask me. i'm not really here. ask the next guy. please. oh lord please please please. ... and the teacher sighs inwardly and answers the question and moves on. in this case, the unnatural effect has nothing to do with computers and everything to do with the failed attempt to turn a lecture into a discussion. | It is only the particular technology that we are using that | determines the intellectual, emotional, and spiritual qualities | that we experience when we are communicating. Hate to be a pain, but I've *got* to point out that Marshall McLuhan said it *much* more succintly thirty years ago :) | The printed word, (literate communication) among other advantages, | can be communicated over and over again with no effort on the part of | the original author, and can be commented upon and easily referenced | without too much scrolling. (This is in contrast to a videotape or tape | recorder, which, while easily reproduceable, have to be constantly | scrolled through.) random access vs sequential access: question is, why does sequential access always seem much more information-rich? mainly because we're forced into the speaker's time: he controls the speed at which the words are heard. accompanying inflection, intonation, etc serve as nonverbal sources of additional meaning. in most texts we're simply skimming words, extracting what we find useful. but with really good texts, we're drawn into the author's world: and the skilled writer will always speak with his own voice, with his own rhythm, opening a window into another mind. | The spoken word, (oral communication), conveys meaning not only | through the word itself, but through tonality or gestures at the | time of speaking. -- For example, I could say "Fuck This Shit" | and without the accompanying context of my laughter, anger, or tongue | in my cheek, the one communicated to might become somewhat frustrated. | | Critics like Ong feel that oral communication has emotional | and contextual properties that may _never_ be reproduced outside | of our physical bodies. I tend to disagree, being very optimistic | about and hungry for advances in both technology and art. *very* optimistic indeed. heh. "just testing this newsgroup", he says. sarah, and most of the class, disagrees. Ong 1, Ben -2. why are "advances in both technology and art" necessary? first you imply that text is all we need to mean anything, anything at all; then you contradict yourself. in communication, "advances in technology and art" have for the past hundred years been in the direction of reproducing the flesh, the sound of your voice, the image of your face. | Ideally, we will be able to not only reproduce the ideas and | general feel of the emotional/physical context of our speech, | but virtually the reality of the communicative properties | of our bodies, ourselves. how, ben, how? through lucid prose, full of feeling, after the fashion of a bronte? or through full-motion holography? both are ways to be there without being there, but they are extremes on McLuhan's scale of "hot" to "cold". words are symbols, representations; but why bother with words when we can plug into cu-seeme and really re-present our faces and voices? give me a concrete example. | I, for one, think that "virtual reality" will not fade as a faddish | dream of the nineties or sci-fi or the twentieth century. If | human beings are to "take what is heavy and raise it up into the region | above, where the gods dwell", they will need to take themselves there. | At the risk of crossing the bridge of the future before I come to it, | I hypothesize that space travel and the environment of strange parts | of the universe would necessitate advances in technology and | expressive communication such that the farther away from home | we go, the greater the need to reproduce it for sanity's sake. | | I shall continue talking about this issue if other members of our | class' virtual community are similiar intrigued by the directions | our manipulation of the world can aid us in understanding ourselves. | | Think about it. Thanks. Is virtual reality practical in today's world? | Is there a better subject of conversation? A better line of reasoning? We're getting away from the speech/writing question. Virtual reality may be the goal at the end of a road, but we're really interested in where the road forks. meng From books-owner Mon Feb 12 12:36:12 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA15251 for books-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:36:11 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA67214 for books; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 07:36:06 -0500 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199602121236.HAA67214@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: two thoughts To: books Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 07:36:06 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 528 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Thanks, Ben. Not sure where the Goddess is: divine beings are hard to track down sometimes. substance/style: that's a Lanham question -- *is* there a difference between the two? "advances in technology and art": what makes an "advance"? is there any *normative* ("moral"?) assumption about "advances"? i.e., does it sort of vaguely feel that when we say "advance" we mean a good thing? Are there really any good things? Or perhaps just "things", which bring with them differing mixtures of good and bad? jo'd From books-owner Mon Feb 12 12:40:57 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA61715 for books-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:40:57 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA65035 for books; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 07:40:54 -0500 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199602121240.HAA65035@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Moderated? Unmoderated . . . To: books Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 07:40:53 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1189 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk The documentation Meng got for linking newsgroup and list explained, obscurely, why the newsgroup would now appear "moderated". Roughly, it appears that there is a filter in place that looks at messages to see if they are already there and when they are, it kills them: this stops the endless loop. Every message to the newsgroup generates two messages in my box -- one a copy of the message sent to the whole list and one a "Bounce" of the undelivered-to-the-newsgroup duplicate when it gets caught by the filter and sent back to me. No human hands intervene, no time elapses, and no screening intervenes. Now, Ben or *anyone*, answer me this one: why does the possibility of interference in discourse of this kind (by dis-privileging the newsgroup, or by putting a human "moderator" in the way of free access to the list) *bother* us so much? I don't mean to imply that it doesn't or that it shouldn't, but I want you to think about and make explicit the reason why this is such a hot button issue. Another way of asking it is: why precisely do websters of all kinds oppose the Telecommunications Act that wants to restrict the circulation of indecency? jo'd From books-owner Mon Feb 12 13:30:13 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA37768 for books-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 13:30:12 GMT Received: from mail1.sas.upenn.edu (dcasteel@MAIL1.SAS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.26.32]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA22402 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 08:30:09 -0500 Received: (from dcasteel@localhost) by mail1.sas.upenn.edu (8.7.3/SAS 8.05) id IAA27070 for books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 08:30:32 -0500 (EST) From: dcasteel@sas.upenn.edu (The Goddess) Posted-Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 08:30:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199602121330.IAA27070@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: finally To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (books) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 08:30:32 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk finally somebody else recognizes me as a deity around here! :) as far as jo'd's ?'s go regarding the human/inhuman moderation of this newsgroup/listserve connection, I have a couple of things to say. First, I would like to applaud Ben's efforts. In case you haven't noticed, he's one of the frontrunners opposing the CDA on this campus. But why, exactly? Why does it bother us that someone else might read our *personal* correspondence over the internet. For the exact same reasons that it is *unlawful* for somebody other than yourself to read your mail, the paper kind. It is an invasion of privacy, something that the governet (that's what I call them now) should never do, excepting cases of national security and 10trillion dollar drug deals. In those cases they can do whatever they want, as far as I am concerned. I don't think that our discussions here fall into those categories. I don't see Ben's choice for a subject title (ie FUCK THIS SHIT...even goddesses curse), as having some sort of detrimental effect on children today. then we can talk about the aspect of the newsgroup as being a broadcast medium. is it really? Is it the same thing as the 5oclock news with Joe Schmoe? Or is it the same thing as that radio show with that big-fat-what's-his-name? I am opposed to the CDA for one reason, it is an a priori issue with me...social control. That's the one and *only* reason that it *bothers* me. When they start controlling what I say to whom I say it and when I say it, what's next? I have this grim picture of this cruel quasi-Orwellian *1984* society in which even our thoughts are read and censored by the governet. Picture with me, if you will, a society in which all emotion and feeling are taken out of the communication betwixt people for fear that you will be subjected to the torture of your worst fears at the hand of your *big brother*. In our case, it's our *uncle sam*, but they all wear the same thing. Think about it, a world with no love and no hate and no outlet for saying that we have nothing. Oh, did I forget to mention no SEX! That's the scariest part... This one step puts us on the slippery slope to genocide (a favorite debate argument of mine), and it can only snowball from here. Social control perpetuates itself. Sounds a little drastic, I know. But it only takes one step before you can never turn back, and this just might be the one. that's why it bothers me... I'll say it again...NO SEX! NO LOVE! later, Di -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "I got a bowling ball in my MARDI GRAS 1996 stomach I got a desert in my 7 days of mouth figures that my COURAGE Drunken Debauchery! would choose to sell out now" I can't wait!! -TORI Diane Casteel CAS 1998 NEC Vice-Chair for Feedback Houston Hall Marketing Coordinator Fling '96 Marketing Co-Chair ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From books-owner Tue Feb 13 00:44:14 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05833 for books-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 00:44:12 GMT Received: from mail1.sas.upenn.edu (dcasteel@MAIL1.SAS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.26.32]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA37827 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 19:44:07 -0500 Received: (from dcasteel@localhost) by mail1.sas.upenn.edu (8.7.3/SAS 8.05) id TAA04224 for books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 19:44:30 -0500 (EST) From: dcasteel@sas.upenn.edu (The Goddess) Posted-Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 19:44:30 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199602130044.TAA04224@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Why? To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (books) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 19:44:29 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Why all the silence? only curious, Di -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "I got a bowling ball in my MARDI GRAS 1996 stomach I got a desert in my 7 days of mouth figures that my COURAGE Drunken Debauchery! would choose to sell out now" I can't wait!! -TORI Diane Casteel CAS 1998 NEC Vice-Chair for Feedback Houston Hall Marketing Coordinator Fling '96 Marketing Co-Chair ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From books-owner Tue Feb 13 02:07:31 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08231 for books-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 02:07:30 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA53023 for books; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 21:07:26 -0500 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199602130207.VAA53023@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: hmmm To: books Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 21:07:25 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 211 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Far be it from me to argue with a goddess, but when she says: > I'll say it again...NO SEX! NO LOVE! > > later, > Di . . . doesn't she go a little far? Can't we keep at least *one* of the two? :-) jo'd From books-owner Tue Feb 13 09:04:19 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA59161 for books-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 09:04:18 GMT Received: from netnews.upenn.edu (NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.35.31]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA56852 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 04:04:14 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by netnews.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06757; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 04:04:23 -0500 To: mod-upenn-classics-cultbook@netnews.upenn.edu Path: mail2.sas.upenn.edu!snorman From: snorman@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Sarah A Norman) Newsgroups: upenn.classics.cultbook Subject: Re: Why? Date: 13 Feb 1996 09:04:22 GMT Organization: University of Pennsylvania Lines: 18 Message-ID: <4fpk6m$fnd@netnews.upenn.edu> References: <199602130044.TAA04224@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: mail2.sas.upenn.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2-upenn1.3] Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk The Goddess (dcasteel@sas.upenn.edu) wrote: : Why all the silence? : only curious, : Di Grad essays. 'Tis the season. (grin) Sarah -- Helen of Troy had a wandering glance; Sappho's restriction was only the sky; Ninon was ever the chatter of France; But oh! what a good girl am I! -Dorthy Parker From books-owner Tue Feb 13 09:10:59 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA56926 for books-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 09:10:58 GMT Received: from netnews.upenn.edu (NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.35.31]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA58969 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 04:10:55 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by netnews.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA20562; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 04:11:05 -0500 To: mod-upenn-classics-cultbook@netnews.upenn.edu Path: mail2.sas.upenn.edu!snorman From: snorman@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Sarah A Norman) Newsgroups: upenn.classics.cultbook Subject: combo media Date: 13 Feb 1996 09:11:03 GMT Organization: University of Pennsylvania Lines: 56 Message-ID: <4fpkj8$fnd@netnews.upenn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: mail2.sas.upenn.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2-upenn1.3] Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Foreward from a "24 hours of Democracy" post: On 2/8/96 cyberspace was redefined by the US government. > > If you doubt me, visit . Click on the > calendar icon next to What's New. Check out their coverage of the > Telecom Act, their celebration of 24 Hours in Cyberspace. I think > this trip should be required reading for every freedom-loving > webmaster, webwriter and web user. > The first huge blast of cyberpsace puffery and a historic rejection > of the US Constitution, on the same day. > A coincidence? An accident of history? Hmmmm. > I've learned that when I want to really understand what's going on, > don't look to an Act of God as the explanation, when it's more likely > just an error in logic. > The truth: the media people have learned how to use the net and to > combine it with TV, radio and print media. > They're transferring the power structures in their world to the web > world. > If we want real change, now is the time to make an investment in > democracy on the Internet. > Every voice can be heard. Our ideas speak for us. We can persuade, > cajole, taunt, seduce, use logic, examine all aspects of a problem, > learn, be angry, be scared, and then find the most eloquent > statement, the one that resonates deepest within all of us. > And then we march. > It's an exciting time to be a webwriter! > I get to write about the biggest issue of them all -- freedom. > And, please read on -- you do too. > ***It's our turn > Another truth: the media people liked the blackout campaign. It > worked. The day after 24 Hours in Cyberspace, the big news on TV was the > blackout. It demos well. It was an appropriate protest. Good job! > > Now, let's go the next step. > > They defined cyberspace. > > We define democracy. > Hmm. I don't know what I think of this post -- but something interesting that it does do is suggest that the net is just the logical extension of the combination of print, TV and radio . . . not new, exactly, just a hybred -- and it also seems to link "web rights" in with not only the 1st amendment censorship problems but also with the rights to free assembly -- is the web a virtual meeting ground? Sarah -- Helen of Troy had a wandering glance; Sappho's restriction was only the sky; Ninon was ever the chatter of France; But oh! what a good girl am I! -Dorthy Parker From books-owner Tue Feb 13 12:33:46 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA11081 for books-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 12:33:45 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22596 for books; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 07:33:38 -0500 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199602131233.HAA22596@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: Moderated? Unmoderated . . . (fwd) To: books Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 07:33:38 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1706 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Did this get to the list/group from Sarah? She thinks not, so I forward for her. jo'd Sarah A Norman wrote: From snorman@sas.upenn.edu Tue Feb 13 09:01:04 1996 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 04:01:27 -0500 (EST) From: snorman@sas.upenn.edu (Sarah A Norman) Posted-Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 04:01:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199602130901.EAA04012@mail2.sas.upenn.edu> To: jod@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (James O'Donnell) Subject: Re: Moderated? Unmoderated . . . Newsgroups: upenn.classics.cultbook X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2-upenn1.3] Content-Type: text : Now, Ben or *anyone*, answer me this one: why does the : possibility of interference in discourse of this kind (by dis-privileging : the newsgroup, or by putting a human "moderator" in the way of free : access to the list) *bother* us so much? I don't mean to imply that it : doesn't or that it shouldn't, but I want you to think about and make : explicit the reason why this is such a hot button issue. Another way of : asking it is: why precisely do websters of all kinds oppose the : Telecommunications Act that wants to restrict the circulation of : indecency? BY saying that net porno isn't protected by the same laws that give us freedom of speech on paper, the government is saying something about the net, I think -- that it's inferior, or maybe that it's better, more accessible, more dangerous? Anyway, a legal distinction has just been made between "real" and "virtual" materials -- real ones are under the 1st amendment; virtual ones aren't. Sarah -- Helen of Troy had a wandering glance; Sappho's restriction was only the sky; Ninon was ever the chatter of France; But oh! what a good girl am I! -Dorthy Parker From books-owner Tue Feb 13 16:09:50 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA20043 for books-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 16:09:48 GMT Received: from central.cis.upenn.edu (CENTRAL.CIS.UPENN.EDU [158.130.12.2]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA58937 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 11:09:38 -0500 Received: from widget.seas.upenn.edu (sameerm@WIDGET.SEAS.UPENN.EDU [130.91.4.103]) by central.cis.upenn.edu (8.6.12/UPenn 1.4) with ESMTP id LAA23693 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 11:10:01 -0500 Received: (from sameerm@localhost) by widget.seas.upenn.edu (8.6.10) id LAA01890 for books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 11:09:59 -0500 Posted-Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 11:09:59 -0500 Message-Id: <199602131609.LAA01890@widget.seas.upenn.edu> Subject: Written Word : Inferior ??? To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (CLST 158 listserv) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 11:09:58 -0500 (EST) From: "Sameer Y. Merchant" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2426 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk > Subject: Written Word : Inferior ??? > From: "SALMAN NIAZ" > I am amazed at the truth represented in Socrates' recollection of the > tradition, (which was passed down - written or orally) where in the > egyptian king points out that written word may even become our weakness: > An example paralled to that which comes to mind is the computerization of > information at the library, there used to be a time when one would go to > the library and read materials and take notes but now one only has to > look up a few links, photocopy a couple of articles and feel as though he > knows the information. > Similarly written word may present the same situation when it concerns > memory and knowledge. You could extend this argument to cover any form of transfer of knowledge, including speech, by arguing that someone who hears the words of another will never fully interiorize them, and that the only way to truly 'understand' a discovery is to make it yourself. > An argument that may be raised in favor of written word is the wide > expansion of information out there, how else could there be such > widespread accessible information of all that is there, if written word > did not exist: imagine how many people you would have to run into to hear > such a number of traditions or how many traditions your teacher would > have to remember. And how much of it would be accurate anyway? > However, written word may be referred to as a shadow of spoken word in > the sense that one's thought process is originally in words, words which > were originally meant for oral communication and a written form is > thereafter composed hence replicating the speech that may have been > delivered otherwise. Untrue! Except in societies emerging from primary orality (i.e. oral cultures without any knowledge of the written word), the written word is vastly different from the spoken word. For instance, speech is generally characterized by linearity of thought and redundancy (repetition of ideas; see Lysias). Even today, the written and spoken words are often used to achieve different ends, and this affects the manner of their use. Try delivering an extemporaneous speech, then prepare another one on the same topic and deliver it. Finally, prepare a written discourse on the topic. I think you will be surprised at how differently you used each of these media. Sameer From books-owner Tue Feb 13 19:10:12 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA24303 for books-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 19:10:07 GMT Received: from netnews.upenn.edu (NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.35.31]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA16346 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 14:09:51 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by netnews.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA14872; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 14:09:59 -0500 To: mod-upenn-classics-cultbook@netnews.upenn.edu Path: mail1.sas.upenn.edu!dcasteel From: dcasteel@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (The Goddess) Newsgroups: upenn.chat,upenn.classics.cultbook Subject: Enforcement Date: 13 Feb 1996 19:09:58 GMT Organization: University of Pennsylvania Lines: 44 Message-ID: <4fqnm6$k9c@netnews.upenn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: mail1.sas.upenn.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2-upenn1.3] Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk I was wondering: With the *crimes* that are specified in the CDA, who enforces? Who punishes? Do you really think that, of all the people that say *shit* on the net in one day, the majority of them will be prosecuted, and thus punished? Who falls through the cracks in the system and who decides that, and on the basis of what? It's kinda like the red light theory: if nobody is there to catch you and cite you for disobeying the law, did you break it? If the majority of people go unpunished for something, does that reinforce the validity or invalidate the law? I am tempted to say that it would discredit the law's effectiveness on the public, and in turn, that leads to laws that have fallen into desuetude. Think about it: their are laws on the books (especially in Oklahoma) that state that sex performed any other way than the missionary position is illegal and punishable (in what terms, I don't know). Seriously, though. It's not enforced anymore. It is theoretically invalid. In terms of the cyber-age, that certainly will become part of the future, and part of the human's way of life for some time. So it's not as if legislation regarding the internet will become a dead horse anytime soon. But what happens when the laws that govern the system are broken at a rate inversely proportional to the number of people that actually get punished for the crimes? If laws, and the enforcement of those laws are supposed to act as a deterrent for the collective group, is that method of deterrence functionally practical when the laws are ineffective? later, Di -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "I got a bowling ball in my MARDI GRAS 1996 stomach I got a desert in my 7 days of mouth figures that my COURAGE Drunken Debauchery! would choose to sell out now" I can't wait!! -TORI Diane Casteel CAS 1998 NEC Vice-Chair for Feedback Houston Hall Marketing Coordinator Fling '96 Marketing Co-Chair ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From books-owner Tue Feb 13 20:57:00 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA55672 for books-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 20:56:51 GMT Received: from shiva2.cac.washington.edu (shiva2.cac.washington.edu [140.142.100.202]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA36456 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 15:56:39 -0500 Received: by shiva2.cac.washington.edu (5.65+UW96.01/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA01023; Tue, 13 Feb 96 12:56:44 -0800 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 12:56:43 -0800 (PST) From: Linda Wright To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Subject: Re: Moderated? Unmoderated . . . (fwd) In-Reply-To: <199602131233.HAA22596@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk (Sarah's message hadn't reached me before JO'D forwarded it.) Now, to offer one possible answer to her question on why different censorship laws apply, I wonder if we shouldn't consider the medium as a reason for the distinction. Is the net more accessible than a copy of your porn magazine of choice at your local supermarket? Not everyone has hundreds of dollars of equipment at their disposal or the knowledge to use it (my parents still have a *party line* for their telephone!--net access is impossible), but paper is very easy to come by, isn't it? Is it also related to a low-class vs middle- high-class difference, not just "real" and "virtual"? Is it more comfortable to get your porn over the net where you think no one is judging you as you pull out your wallet? Mom is probably less likely to look on your disk drive than under your bed, isn't she? Sarah, maybe the government is more concerned that there is less social pressure motivating our behavior over the net--which really comes down to censorship again, doesn't it? -Linda > Sarah A Norman wrote: > > BY saying that net porno isn't protected by the same laws that give us > freedom of speech on paper, the government is saying something about the > net, I think -- that it's inferior, or maybe that it's better, more > accessible, more dangerous? Anyway, a legal distinction has just been made > between "real" and "virtual" materials -- real ones are under the 1st > amendment; virtual ones aren't. > > Sarah From books-owner Wed Feb 14 01:48:54 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA07767 for books-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 01:48:52 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA21069 for books; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 20:48:48 -0500 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199602140148.UAA21069@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Lanham To: books Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 20:48:47 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 256 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Deal is: put together your questions for him as we read this week, I'll pass them along to him, and he'll reply directly. He's not crazy about signing up for the list/group seeing as to how he's got a life, but he's delighted to be taken seriously. From books-owner Wed Feb 14 05:03:13 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA33017 for books-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 05:03:01 GMT Received: from central.cis.upenn.edu (CENTRAL.CIS.UPENN.EDU [158.130.12.2]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA46044 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 00:02:22 -0500 Received: from widget.seas.upenn.edu (sameerm@WIDGET.SEAS.UPENN.EDU [130.91.4.103]) by central.cis.upenn.edu (8.6.12/UPenn 1.4) with ESMTP id AAA10004 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 00:02:45 -0500 Received: (from sameerm@localhost) by widget.seas.upenn.edu (8.6.10) id AAA09706 for books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 00:02:43 -0500 Posted-Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 00:02:43 -0500 Message-Id: <199602140502.AAA09706@widget.seas.upenn.edu> Subject: Enforcement To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (CLST 158 listserv) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 00:02:42 -0500 (EST) From: "Sameer Y. Merchant" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2520 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk > From: dcasteel@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (The Goddess) > Subject: Enforcement > I was wondering: > With the *crimes* that are specified in the CDA, who enforces? Who > punishes? Do you really think that, of all the people that say *shit* on > the net in one day, the majority of them will be prosecuted, and thus > punished? Who falls through the cracks in the system and who decides > that, and on the basis of what? I believe that at least at first, politicians would be more interested in using the bill to gain political mileage with their constituents (just like they try to gain mileage out of everything else) by clamping down on on-line pornography services and attempting to portray themselves as the the battlers of those would wish to corrupt America's youth. > to laws that have fallen into desuetude. Think about it: their are laws > on the books (especially in Oklahoma) that state that sex performed any > other way than the missionary position is illegal and punishable (in what > terms, I don't know). Seriously, though. It's not enforced anymore. It > is theoretically invalid. Maybe they should call in the vice squads. :) > In terms of the cyber-age, that certainly will become part of the future, > and part of the human's way of life for some time. So it's not as if > legislation regarding the internet will become a dead horse anytime > soon. But what happens when the laws that govern the system are broken > at a rate inversely proportional to the number of people that actually > get punished for the crimes? If laws, and the enforcement of those laws > are supposed to act as a deterrent for the collective group, is that > method of deterrence functionally practical when the laws are ineffective? I'm not sure about that. While it remains to be seen how seriously this law will be enforced, I do not think that it will in practice be used to regulate the actions of the everyday user. So while you may see a fall in the amount of pornography on-line, I don't think you'll have any great decrease in the number of technical violations of the law. However, such a law is always dangerous just because it is law and can be enforced at any given time depending on the whims and fancies of those who might have reason to wish it's enforcement. For instance, this law may be of particular use if you wish to blackmail someone. Sameer Dismayed that those who know the least about the Internet are also those who get the maximum say in what appears on it. From books-owner Wed Feb 14 05:07:15 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA05654 for books-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 05:07:09 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA13061 for books; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 00:06:48 -0500 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199602140506.AAA13061@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: further note on CDA To: books Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 00:06:48 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1109 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk It is said on the street that this law forbids distribution of information about abortion. I was curious and asked a lawyer. Turns out that what it says is that certain specific older statutes which restricted distribution of pornography and other harmful materials by *mail* would also apply to networked communications. So free speech activists went to read those laws (which the bozos who did this law didn't) and found that one of the things the 1873 law forbade was mailing information about abortion. So *they* come out and say THIS LAW FORBIDS DISTRIBUTING INFO ABOUT ABORTION. Pause and think about that for a second before going on to read my comments a screen below. Notice that it is in the interests of the free speech activists to paint the law as negatively as possible. There haven't been any prosecutions under the abortion provisions of the old law in a bazillion years and won't be; but *technically* it's in the new law, so in order to raise consciousness and opposition, activists point it out and insist on it, to scare us. Evaluate this tactic. jo'd From books-owner Wed Feb 14 05:14:26 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA36397 for books-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 05:14:25 GMT Received: from central.cis.upenn.edu (CENTRAL.CIS.UPENN.EDU [158.130.12.2]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA36390 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 00:14:19 -0500 Received: from widget.seas.upenn.edu (sameerm@WIDGET.SEAS.UPENN.EDU [130.91.4.103]) by central.cis.upenn.edu (8.6.12/UPenn 1.4) with ESMTP id AAA10446 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 00:14:43 -0500 Received: (from sameerm@localhost) by widget.seas.upenn.edu (8.6.10) id AAA09826 for books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 00:14:41 -0500 Posted-Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 00:14:41 -0500 Message-Id: <199602140514.AAA09826@widget.seas.upenn.edu> Subject: Cool (and relevant) site of the week To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (CLST 158 listserv) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 00:14:39 -0500 (EST) From: "Sameer Y. Merchant" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 61 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk http://www.mit.edu:8001/activities/safe/notsee.html Sameer From books-owner Thu Feb 15 02:35:32 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA34648 for books-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 1996 02:35:31 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA23122 for books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 21:35:24 -0500 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199602150235.VAA23122@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: BOOKS: important updates/assignments To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 21:35:24 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 3318 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk (1) Lanham will be out of the country for about ten days ending this month, so we will save queries to pass along to him about 1 March. (2) *I* will be out of the country and out of e-mail range next week and so class will not be held. THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU GET A WEEK OFF. :-) a. A recommendation first: some of you I think are already taking Michael Ryan's course on the history of the book that meets Wed. 2-5 in Lea Library. You are welcome visitors there next week, for a session that will concentrate on the way printed books and other artifacts in the time of the Renaissance helped shape expectations about the world. Interesting stuff. (Lea Library is on the sixth floor of Van Pelt library: the old room reconstructed from the original setting in Furness). b. A MANDATORY ASSIGNMENT SECOND: As you go on reading Lanham, and by next week you should finish chapter 7, I want you to write me (send by private e-mail not to the list) 2000-2500 words summarizing and analyzing the argument of chapter 7, "The Q Question". What is the question? What answer(s) does Lanham propose? How do you understand that and evaluate it? My intention is to turn one or two of these essays around (my choice) and publish them to the class for discussion on Tuesday 27 February when I return. These essays are due into my e-mail box by no later than 6 p.m., 24 February. c. FURTHER ASSIGNMENT: by the 1st of March, you will have discussed with me, liveware-liveware or by e-mail, what you propose to read/study/write-about for your own project for this course. Here are the basic criteria, but excellent (not good, excellent) alternatives are welcome. 1. Output must be a WWW site. I'll schedule a session the week of 4 March to give instruction. 2. Content should be chosen to facilitate reflection and analysis about the nature of media by which verbal communication is transmitted. 3. Good topics will be in some sense comparative: i.e., they will take some similar phenomenon in two media (say handwritten manuscript vs. print, or the spoken word vs. WWW, or television vs. radio, or handwritten manuscript vs. television, or any combination of above) and by intelligent comparison and analysis show what effect a change in medium has on the impact of the expression. 4. Good topics will arise out of your own intellectual and academic interests and so can arise in a very broad range of areas. Several of you are not typical USAns but have experience of some quite different cultures: feel free to draw upon this in a lively way. 5. Everyone will spend one class session before the end of term leading a discussion of some aspect of your work. Best such presentations will be based already on WWW materials or alternatively presented materials that bring the issues vividly to the other students in the course. After spring break, we will have finished Lanham, so the bulk of our work will be *your* work on these projects, supplemented by some readings that I will provide on the WWW. Useful suggestion: My "publications" page (start from my http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod) contains some things I've written that might stimulate thought and that I *will* be assigning later for discussion. jo'd From books-owner Thu Feb 15 02:59:34 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12151 for books-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 1996 02:59:32 GMT Received: from netnews.upenn.edu (NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.35.31]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA33136 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 21:59:28 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by netnews.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA04381; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 21:59:36 -0500 To: mod-upenn-classics-cultbook@netnews.upenn.edu Path: mail2.sas.upenn.edu!bwyche From: bwyche@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Benjamin Wyche) Newsgroups: upenn.classics.cultbook Subject: Is Ben's site cool? Date: 15 Feb 1996 02:59:36 GMT Organization: University of Pennsylvania Lines: 25 Message-ID: <4fu7io$i17@netnews.upenn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: mail2.sas.upenn.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2-upenn1.3] Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk I've decided that my final project will be to make my homepage into a "Cool Site of the Week" somewhere on the web...as based on the interplay of its content meaning and its aesthetic structure. Cool. -- Ben Wyche (215)/417-6972 "I read http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~bwyche" $@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@ Leave out the fiction, The fact is -- This friction Can only be worn by persistence... Leave out conditions, Courageous convictions Will drag the dream ...Into existence -Neil Peart, "Vital Signs" Rush, _Moving Pictures_ $@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@ From books-owner Thu Feb 15 16:13:30 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA64331 for books-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 1996 16:13:29 GMT Received: from homer30.u.washington.edu (rstaffel@homer30.u.washington.edu [140.142.77.8]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA40515 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 1996 11:13:25 -0500 Received: by homer30.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW96.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA53244; Thu, 15 Feb 96 08:13:47 -0800 X-Sender: rstaffel@homer30.u.washington.edu Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 08:13:47 -0800 (PST) From: Rebecca Staffel To: The List Subject: New discussion group "CDA96-L" = COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT of 1996 (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Librarians are up in arms! Here's a place to keep talking about the Decency Act... Rebecca Staffel University of Washington ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 11:04:34 EST From: Gary Klein (bear-at-heart) To: Multiple recipients of list LIBREF-L Subject: New discussion group "CDA96-L" = COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT of 1996 ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- In light of the recent furor over the airwaves, in the media, and in lawsuits regarding the COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT of 1996 that United States' President Clinton signed into law on February 8, 1996, I have created a forum for people to discuss the concerns raised by this (and similar) pieces of legislation. LISTNAME: CDA96-L FULL TITLE: Communications Decency Act of 1996 Discussion Group FORMAT: Un-moderated, Postings must come from registered subscribers SUBSCRIPTIONS: via LISTPROC software LISTOWNER: Gary M. Klein Management & Business Economics Librarian Hatfield Library Willamette University Salem, Oregon 97301 USA DESCRIPTION: CDA96-L is open to the networkng community. Its primary role is to serve as a means of communication among people who are concerned about the implications of the United States of America's COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT of 1996 (signed into law by President William J. Clinton on February 8, 1996). Its secondary role is to serve as a discussion forum for similar legislation or regulation that may be in the formative or final stages in any other country, or at any local jurisdiction that would restrict, limit or inhibit use of Internet resources based on "decency", "morality", "offensiveness", or based on the age of someone using, operating, or accessing an Internet resource. SUBSCRIBING TO THE "CDA96-L" LIST: Anyone may subscribe to the list by sending a command to For example, if Idi Amin wanted to subscribe, the post would be: mailto: listproc@willamette.edu text: sub cda96-l Idi Amin OTHER LISTPROC COMMANDS: Will be supplied to each subscriber as part of the Welcome Message. (please feel free to cross-post this announcement in appropriate places) GARY M. KLEIN "not your average librarian & indecent communicator" Hatfield Library / Willamette University / Salem, Oregon 97301 USA work 503-370-6743 / gklein@willamette.edu From books-owner Thu Feb 15 19:42:26 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA64161 for books-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 1996 19:42:24 GMT Received: from futures.wharton.upenn.edu (FUTURES.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU [130.91.163.132]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA62104 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 1996 14:42:20 -0500 Received: (from correa69@localhost) by futures.wharton.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA00863 for books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu; Thu, 15 Feb 1996 14:42:41 -0500 From: David Correa Message-Id: <199602151942.OAA00863@futures.wharton.upenn.edu> Subject: web site To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 14:42:41 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 122 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Check out http://www.si.edu it's the homepage of the Smithsonian Institute with several cool links to various museums. From books-owner Sat Feb 17 13:35:13 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA10410 for books-outgoing; Sat, 17 Feb 1996 13:35:12 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23972 for books@ccat.sas; Sat, 17 Feb 1996 08:35:06 -0500 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199602171335.IAA23972@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: *Anything* You Want? (fwd) To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 08:35:06 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1180 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk >From an alumna of our course. Linda Wright wrote: From lwright@cac.washington.edu Sat Feb 17 05:53:26 1996 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 21:53:47 -0800 (PST) From: Linda Wright To: "James J. O'Donnell" Subject: *Anything* You Want? Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII You saw this? Interesting fodder for books@ccat? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- SPREADING THE WORD The Washington Post has reported that a Maryland family received a number of threatening calls after a University of Maryland student used the Internet to circulate a hearsay allegation that a daughter in the family was being mistreated by her mother. Posting his message on Internet news groups concerned with child welfare, psychology, left-wing politics, and civil liberties, the student urged people to call the mother "at home and tell her you are disgusted and you demand that she stops." The student claims: "You should be able to write what you want on the Internet, whether it's true or not." (Houston Chronicle 14 Feb 96 2A) From books-owner Sat Feb 17 19:16:43 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA34034 for books-outgoing; Sat, 17 Feb 1996 19:16:41 GMT Received: from netnews.upenn.edu (NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.35.31]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA56044 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 1996 14:16:33 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by netnews.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA04454; Sat, 17 Feb 1996 14:16:39 -0500 To: mod-upenn-classics-cultbook@netnews.upenn.edu Path: mail1.sas.upenn.edu!bwyche From: bwyche@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Benjamin Wyche) Newsgroups: upenn.classics.cultbook,upenn.free-speech Subject: Re: *Anything* You Want? (fwd) Date: 17 Feb 1996 19:16:38 GMT Organization: University of Pennsylvania Lines: 97 Message-ID: <4g59im$vqj@netnews.upenn.edu> References: <199602171335.IAA23972@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: mail1.sas.upenn.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2-upenn1.3] Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk : Linda Wright wrote: : From lwright@cac.washington.edu Sat Feb 17 05:53:26 1996 : Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 21:53:47 -0800 (PST) : SPREADING THE WORD : The Washington Post has reported that a Maryland family received a number : of threatening calls after a University of Maryland student used the : Internet to circulate a hearsay allegation that a daughter in the family : was being mistreated by her mother. Posting his message on Internet news : groups concerned with child welfare, psychology, left-wing politics, and : civil liberties, the student urged people to call the mother "at home and : tell her you are disgusted and you demand that she stops." The student : claims: "You should be able to write what you want on the Internet, : whether it's true or not." (Houston Chronicle 14 Feb 96 2A) Vitally important in my mind are 2 things: 1)The First Amendment allows one to put up whatever one wants on the net (from a libertarian perspecive, this includes obscenities), but not where it violates other rights under the U.S. Constitution. For example, the student could have posted what he did, but is subject to laws regulating against libel, fraud, threat, and invasion of privacy after the post. Further, the people who made the threatening phone calls should have taken up the issue with law enforcement agencies first, and should be persecuted under whatever law is designed to protect people from being threatened with physical harm. 2)Punishment of the student should/would be on the basis of the danger his action of posting posed to or caused the family's lives, *not* on the specifics of what he posted. If he posed something untrue or true, there would be no difference if they both led to violations of privacy and threatening phone calls. That the threatening phone calls seems to prove that the speech is not the problem per se. If the family was unaware of the post -- the phone calls provided the tip off. The best alternative is somebody calling to verify the validity of the post in a nonthreatening way. A horrible alternative is someone trying to enter the family's home in the name of protecting the daughter without saying anything. It's the actions and the lives that count here, I think. The speech itself is a threat when linked to bodily or property harm that the family can not prevent without the aid of law enforcement. Physiological harm or fright could occur, but could be dealt with by the family by supportive talk amongst themselves, and the family might actually choose to let the speech stand as is, so they can fight it face-to-face and neutralize its power over readers/listeners. I don't see _any way_ to protect against intentional fraud or mistaken information _before_ it happens, outside of warning against it by examples of past fraud and its consequences. Someone would have to be in the omniscient postition of censoring _all posts to the net_ before they actually happened. I could imagine the consequences, in that people en masse would not post anything or would have to wait for approval by censors to communicate. 3)Some of the solutions are: a:treating this as an incitement to riot case, a libel or fraud case, or a violation of privacy case b:verifying the information on the net, calling the police, calling the student on the phone c: Having a law agent disclaiming the post in a followup or making the student disclaim his post without forcing him to erase it, as it seems to have created legimate threats to the families lives, and then spreading that post all over to serve as a warning. Buying the family a call tracer seems necessary, too. Suggestions? Corrections? Elaborations on legal specifics? Call me. I'd work on this in the context of a class, cultures of the book, so it's already part of my schedule for the year. -- Ben Wyche (215)/417-6972 "I read http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~bwyche" $@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@ Leave out the fiction, The fact is -- This friction Can only be worn by persistence... Leave out conditions, Courageous convictions Will drag the dream ...Into existence -Neil Peart, "Vital Signs" Rush, _Moving Pictures_ $@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@ From books-owner Sat Feb 17 19:33:34 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA33904 for books-outgoing; Sat, 17 Feb 1996 19:33:33 GMT Received: from mail2.sas.upenn.edu (pasterna@MAIL2.SAS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.26.33]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA35435; Sat, 17 Feb 1996 14:33:30 -0500 Received: (from pasterna@localhost) by mail2.sas.upenn.edu (8.7.3/SAS 8.05) id OAA17527; Sat, 17 Feb 1996 14:33:51 -0500 (EST) From: pasterna@sas.upenn.edu (Karen E Pasternack) Posted-Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 14:33:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199602171933.OAA17527@mail2.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: *Anything* You Want? (fwd) To: jod@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (James O'Donnell) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 14:33:51 -0500 (EST) Cc: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu In-Reply-To: <199602171335.IAA23972@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> from "James O'Donnell" at Feb 17, 96 08:35:06 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk I would just like to express to everyone that I had a similar conversation about being able to say "anything you want" on the internet. I was talking to the head of a certain group on the Penn Campus on Friday and he told me that this group had received an e-mail which was not specifically directed at anyone, but was extremely hateful. He actually had a printout of this e-mail and I read it and was horrified by what it said. However, I still feel that it is not worth losing our rights to free speech just because some *sick* people are out there. If we try to limit people who abuse the internet, we may eventually be limiting ourselves as well. -- Karen Pasternack University of Pennsylvania '98 215-417-0553 Minority Affairs Beat Reporter Daily Pennsylvanian 898-6585 From books-owner Tue Feb 20 06:58:43 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA40115 for books-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 06:58:38 GMT Received: from netnews.upenn.edu (NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.35.31]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA61358 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 01:58:35 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by netnews.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA20352; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 01:58:40 -0500 To: mod-upenn-classics-cultbook@netnews.upenn.edu Path: mail1.sas.upenn.edu!bwyche From: bwyche@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Benjamin Wyche) Newsgroups: upenn.classics.cultbook Subject: Re: Is Ben's site cool? Date: 20 Feb 1996 06:58:38 GMT Organization: University of Pennsylvania Lines: 65 Message-ID: <4gbreu$gu2@netnews.upenn.edu> References: <4fu7io$i17@netnews.upenn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: mail1.sas.upenn.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2-upenn1.3] Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk As we're all making our websites a site where people wish to become more entangled, and as I would like to transmogrify mine from being a series of links to a site of permanent beauty and praciticality, I would like to reveal my strategy for building from the start. I hope it will spur others to action... 1)Pen/paper write and sketch a conception of my page, as based on what I've seen so far on the web that I crave. 2)Go to websites with admirable qualities, and just plain copy their best features from the "view source" file. I'll end up with a pragmatic mongrel of a page. a)Use various cool sites of the day, Penn students pages, and html instruction pages to model my page on. Understand the language I'm speaking. 3)Integrate my page with original text ideas, and style it slowly until it becomes a beloved site. I shall find something that will make the site or a subsite of it like a magnet in a lead stack, while keeping it related to class discussion. 4)Do 1-3 modifications each time I read Lanham or post to this newsgroup. Anything interesting I come across as I cruise through the Net surf I shall relay back to my fellow cultures of the book netonauts. 5)Dreamline (as opposed to "deadline") Work steadily until night final page is due, then just copy all of "Church of Subgenius" and pass it off as original work. I'll just make the back of it black and interpret as post-modern art. 6)Be cautious with my quotes -- if Lanham honors us by engaging in discussion I shall not ask questions like: "How might we do at least this much?" -Lanham, pg141 'Nuff said. Get to work. -- Ben Wyche (215)/417-6972 "I read http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~bwyche" $@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@ Leave out the fiction, The fact is -- This friction Can only be worn by persistence... Leave out conditions, Courageous convictions Will drag the dream ...Into existence -Neil Peart, "Vital Signs" Rush, _Moving Pictures_ $@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@$@ From books-owner Tue Feb 20 20:31:25 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA57767 for books-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 20:31:24 GMT Received: from mail1.sas.upenn.edu (snorman@MAIL1.SAS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.26.32]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA42914 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 15:31:21 -0500 Received: (from snorman@localhost) by mail1.sas.upenn.edu (8.7.3/SAS 8.05) id PAA14930; Tue, 20 Feb 1996 15:31:40 -0500 (EST) From: snorman@sas.upenn.edu (Sarah A Norman) Posted-Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 15:31:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199602202031.PAA14930@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: Is Ben's site cool? To: bwyche@sas.upenn.edu (Benjamin Wyche) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 15:31:40 -0500 (EST) Cc: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (Book Class) In-Reply-To: <4gbreu$gu2@netnews.upenn.edu> from "Benjamin Wyche" at Feb 20, 96 06:58:38 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk > > As we're all making our websites a site where > people wish to become more entangled, and as > I would like to transmogrify mine from being > a series of links to a site of permanent beauty > and praciticality, I would like to reveal my strategy > for building from the start. I hope it will spur > others to action... Hey, Ben -- I faced some of these same questions awhile back making my dept.english page -- my page gets used by two different classes and people looking for lit. stuff, so I had to think about organization and utility in a way that I hadn't back when I was just making a page for me. For example: I suddenly had to worry about offending people who had been told to come to my page -- were they just browsing I wouldn't have cared what they thought -- but now that my page has moved past me into the world of other's convience, I felt a strange obligation to make it a lot less about my personality and politics and more about useful information. (I didn't totally, naturally, but things certainly did change a lot) Your page can represent you to people -- being a former computer techie at both Circuit City and for ResNet, I've had employers look me up, for example, to see if I know what I'm doing. When suddenly your page starts getting used for more than just you and your friend's work/amusement, it really does become a bit 'o public property, in a way -- sort of like whatever clothes you choose to wear each day. When you're home, people could theoretically drop by, but the chances are you can wear whatever you want and nobody will notice. If you go out dressed like that . . . you open yourself up to a lot more notice, good and bad. Now owning a "practical" website, I have to admit it's not nearly as fun as the one I could have before I had to start "burying" links and stuff. MIND YOU, NOBODY MADE ME DO THIS!!! A wierd sort of self-censorship -- or is it? Everything is still there, after all, just some it it's buried places . . . sort of like Dr. O'D's reasoning that copywright might be protected out of simple compliacity of operation -- my relative censorship works the same way. It's all there -- how hard are you willing to work to find it? But most of my editoralism is now gone. That's not to say it might not come back, but now that my page *has* to be looked at by some people, I somehow didn't find it "fair" to make them look at my propaganda. Given any thought to the presentiation/public issue of your page? -- The 1990's will be remembered historically as the decade when the Russians gained freedom of speech and the Americans lost theirs. -Alph Press From books-owner Sat Feb 24 21:25:26 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA50350 for books-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 1996 21:25:20 GMT Received: from mail2.sas.upenn.edu (dcasteel@MAIL2.SAS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.26.33]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA38824 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 1996 16:25:17 -0500 Received: (from dcasteel@localhost) by mail2.sas.upenn.edu (8.7.3/SAS 8.05) id QAA14047 for books@ccat.sas; Sat, 24 Feb 1996 16:25:35 -0500 (EST) From: dcasteel@sas.upenn.edu (The Goddess) Posted-Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 16:25:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199602242125.QAA14047@mail2.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: how many? To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 16:25:35 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk how many email pages is 2000-2500 words? I asked jo'd but he never gave me an answer. BTW, is anyone else having a difficult time writing this assingment? needing answers, Di -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "I got a bowling ball in my stomach I got a desert in my mouth figures that my COURAGE would choose to sell out now" -TORI Diane Casteel CAS 1998 NEC Vice-Chair for Feedback Houston Hall Marketing Coordinator Fling '96 Marketing Co-Chair ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From books-owner Sat Feb 24 23:53:03 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA38807 for books-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 1996 23:53:02 GMT Received: from icg.resnet.upenn.edu (root@ICG.RESNET.UPENN.EDU [130.91.192.190]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA32146 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 1996 18:52:59 -0500 Received: from [130.91.172.55] (MATRIX.RESNET.UPENN.EDU [130.91.172.55]) by icg.resnet.upenn.edu (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA21690; Sat, 24 Feb 1996 18:54:09 -0500 X-Sender: rourkem@postoffice.seas.upenn.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 18:53:17 -0500 To: dcasteel@sas.upenn.edu (The Goddess) From: rourkem@seas.upenn.edu (Rourke McNamara) Subject: Re: how many? Cc: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk At 16:25 2/24/96, The Goddess wrote: >how many email pages is 2000-2500 words? I asked jo'd but he never gave >me an answer. depends on your screen size and your font size. the easiest way to check is with a unix utility called "wc". if you're writing the paper in pico or emacs then you can just save it and type "wc papername" and it'll tell you how many letters, words, and lines you have. another way is to write it in your favorite word processor and then transfer it over to mail.sas. From books-owner Sat Feb 24 23:59:32 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA38776 for books-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 1996 23:59:31 GMT Received: from mail1.sas.upenn.edu (root@MAIL1.SAS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.26.32]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA10605 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 1996 18:59:27 -0500 Received: from [130.91.191.103] (HRSA616.RESNET.UPENN.EDU [130.91.191.103]) by mail1.sas.upenn.edu (8.7.3/SAS 8.05) with SMTP id SAA05168 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 1996 18:59:44 -0500 (EST) Posted-Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 18:59:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199602242359.SAA05168@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> X-Sender: snorman@postoffice.sas.upenn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 19:11:40 -0500 To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu From: snorman@sas.upenn.edu (Sarah Norman) Subject: Re: how many? Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk >At 16:25 2/24/96, The Goddess wrote: >>how many email pages is 2000-2500 words? I asked jo'd but he never gave >>me an answer. > >depends on your screen size and your font size. > >the easiest way to check is with a unix utility called "wc". if you're >writing the paper in pico or emacs then you can just save it and type "wc >papername" and >it'll tell you how many letters, words, and lines you have. > >another way is to write it in your favorite word processor and then >transfer it over to mail.sas. Agreed -- you can do spell check, work count, etc. in your fav. word processor, and then "fetch" (or whatever program you use to go between your email and your hard drive) it over to mail. (Since I can't spell, this is what I do.) If you're still having problems, call! Sarah 417-8171 Sarah, A Norman snorman@dept.english.upenn.edu http://www.english.upenn.edu/~snorman ---<--<@ "One must learn to be just morbid enough." -Kenneth Burke, "Collected Poems" From books-owner Tue Feb 27 00:52:22 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA43018 for books-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 00:52:21 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA12037 for books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu; Mon, 26 Feb 1996 19:52:18 -0500 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199602270052.TAA12037@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: read this for tomorrow! To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 19:52:18 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 12694 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk One of you, of course, won't need to read this but might enjoy rereading it. I'd just as soon leave it anonymous, but if the author wants to take credit, fine. I regard this as an excellent essay for the purpose, but it leaves plenty of room for discussion, so read it with that in mind. jo'd (The author of the essay chose to prefix the quotation from my assignment, so I leave it. Everything after the ** line is as it came from the author. *********************************************************************** > b. A MANDATORY ASSIGNMENT SECOND: As you go on reading Lanham, > and by next week you should finish chapter 7, I want you > to write me (send by private e-mail not to the list) 2000-2500 > words summarizing and analyzing the argument of chapter 7, > "The Q Question". What is the question? What answer(s) does > Lanham propose? How do you understand that and evaluate it? > My intention is to turn one or two of these essays around (my > choice) and publish them to the class for discussion on > Tuesday 27 February when I return. These essays are due > into my e-mail box by no later than 6 p.m., 24 February. The Q Question, as described in chapter 7 of Lanham's _The Electronic Word_, asks if "the perfect orator ... [is] a good man as well as a good orator." By this Lanham is asking if there is a separation of rhetoric from beliefs and philosophy or if the two come hand in hand. Does truth follow from rhetoric or is it something separate and isolated? In chapter 7 Lanham takes both sides of this argument and shows us how many different writers have addressed this question over the years. The person for whom this question is named, Quintilian, believed the answer to be yes. His argument, which Lanham refers to as the Weak Defense for a yes answer, is that there are two different types of rhetoric, good rhetoric and bad rhetoric. Good rhetoric is used by good people and argues toward the truth while bad rhetoric is used by those people who takes the opposite view from the "good people". The Weak Defense isn't much of an argument at all. It basically says that the good orator is a good man because he simply is. By virtue of having learned rhetoric and using it the orator must be good. The second "form" of a "yes" argument to the Q Question is referred to by Lanham as the Strong Defense. The Strong Defense assumes that truth is determined by social practices and conventions. An example of this is a a modern courtroom. In this setting rhetoric becomes very important and takes on a creative function. The truth is generated from what the two arguments in a courtroom say. The jury decides which becomes the truth and which is just a story. The truth in these situations becomes precedent and helps to decide what the truth will be in another, future situation. In the Strong Defence there is a sort of oscillation or continuing shift between philosophy, what is real and good, and spoken rhetoric. As in the example of the courtroom, there is the spoken rhetoric and then, underlying it, there is the fundamental truth that we see exposed to us. There are many arguments for a "no" answer to the Q Question. Many different authors throughout time have taken the no side on this issue and defended themselves. All of these people, in one form or another, have followed the idea and form of Peter Ramus's arguments as given in his _Arguments in Rhetoric Against Quintilian_. Ramus argues that an orator need not be a good man. Ramus defines rhetoric in terms of style and delivery only. The moral character of the man and his belief in what he is saying do not enter into Ramus' definition of rhetoric. A good orator, in Ramus' view, is someone who has perfected delivery and style - basically just someone who can speak well and therefore morality and philosophy don't figure into the matter at all. Ramus' arguments and philosophies are very much separatist at their core. Not only does he separate the different aspects of rhetoric in his writing, but he also separates reason and speech, and breaks up most of common discourse into separate and discreet subjects. The heart of the Q Question seems to become a difference between separatism and unity. Those people who would answer "yes" to the Q Question are those people who believe in a wholeness of reason and speech and morals. Those who would answer "no" to the Q Question are those who would take the whole, the complete person, and break it down into abilities, thoughts, morals, etc. Lanham first states the above two views and then looks at the works of various authors (most works I'd never even heard of and only the last something I've read) and asks which side of the question they come down on and how they argue for their side. Each of these works seems to look at the question in a more abstracted form. The works cited also seem to move away from strictly academic issues like rhetoric and examine more practical issues. Grafton and Jardine look at education in the fifteenth and sixteenth. Hirsch talks about cultural literacy and education. Whitehead, Graff and Bloom discuss education and bringing up a person to be whole and good. _Odyssey_ is about american industry. The Q Question generalizes to the question of isolation or wholeness. Lanham applies it to education. How should students be taught? When one teaches reading are the books that are used important? Those who answer "yes" to the Q Question would say yes here as well. They would argue that when one teaches children to read they are not simply teaching a skill, but also teaching a philosophy that goes along with that skill. They teach that philosophy by having the children read certain books as they grow up and go through school. Those books somehow make the children 'good' and 'moral' and imbue the 'correct' values. Those who would answer "no" the the Q Question would say that the books children use when they learn to read are irrelevant. Reading is a skill that is learned and exists simply as a skill the way tying shoelaces exists simply as a skill. Neither of these activities have any particular moral value associated with them in any way. Lanham talks about the Q Question in terms of american industry when he discusses _Odyssey_, a book written by John Scully about his late career as the head of Pepsi and his early years at the helm of Apple Computer. In this case Pepsi is the "no" answer to the Q Question. At Pepsi there was a pureness of competition and play. The company wasn't interested in what they were making or how it would affect humanity, they were simply interested in selling their product and being the best at what they did. Apple Computer was, and is, different from this. Apple Computer takes the "yes" answer to the Q Question. At Apple the people took an enormous pride in what they did and the product they put out. They thought of what they were doing as changing the world. Not only was the general attitude different, but the style of management was as well. The individuals in the company were more important and there was more of a wholeness to the company. Lanham also mentions American auto companies. In Japan the car the management style is more 'whole'. The different departments communicate and integrate their jobs and projects. Lanham argues that much of what makes the Japanese so competitive is this wholeness of management as compared to the American approach where engineering and manufacturing, etc are all separated and isolated. How does Lanham answer the Q Question? Lanham looks at the ways in which everyone else has answered the question. To him all the proponents of the "yes" answer have done an insufficient job defending their positions. He doesn't seem to feel that any of them provided a sufficiently solid argument or defence. Even the Strong Defense isn't by any means a solid Euclidean argument the way that Ramus argument for a "no" answer is. Lanham doesn't believe the answer is "no", though. He feels that the answer to the question is "yes" and that a wholeness is necessary in business, in education, in life. Lanham doesn't himself propose a better argument for a yes answer, either, except in writing this piece and showing what is right in the approach that is embodied by the yes answer. Lanham seems to feel that it is important for modern humanists to realize that the answer to the Q Question should be yes and to examine the issue more carefully. A better defense, a more throughout and solid defense, of the yes position is necessary. I believe that Ramus was right, to an extent. The answer to the originally posed Q Question, "is the perfect orator ... a good man as well as a good orator?", is a resounding "no". The skill or speaker has nothing to do with the character or ethics of the person just as a person's intelligence has nothing to do with the person's moral and ethical background. The "no" answer doesn't hold so well as Lanham expands the Q Question to ask so much more. The question of wholeness versus isolation is not so simple as the original question of yes versus no. This new question is not something so simple it can be answered in a binary way. The answer is something that differs from situation to situation and that sometimes is right between "yes" and "no", in an in-between. In two different parts of chapter 7 Lanham talks about educational philosophies and strategies and industrial philosophies. These two are very different subjects and when asking the Q Question as related to these things the "right" answer may very well be different. The answer to the question may be different when you look at grade school education and college education. Or even at different types of college classes. For example, in a class like O'Donnell's "Culture of the Book" it is necessary to look at other disciplines like philosophy and history and english to truly learn something. In a class with a title like "High Stress Materials Engineering" the answer to the question might be "no". The subject matter in the latter course does not need anything from other disciplines to understand it. In the section of italicized text proceeding the fifth chapter Lanham says that the Q Question is something that comes up anew whenever technology changes in a major way. In this context he says the question is, "What are we trying to protect? The old technology itself or what it carries for us, does to us?" In a way this is again the question of wholeness versus separatism, the Q Question. In answer Lanham argues that people are simply protecting the old technology, the codex book. He argues that the book has become symbolic to us and powerful to us and this is why people defend the written word over the electronic word. If you look at the whole issue you see that what the book "carries for us, does to us" the electronic word does as well. The form the book comes in doesn't have any inherent ability to affect us, the _words_ printed in that book do. Those words are the same if they come to us on a computer screen or if they come to us printed on the pages of a book. In this case the answer to the Q Question is yes. We must keep the whole picture in sight in order to make the right decision; to act in a rational manner. The Q Question, what is it? Is it simply the question that Quintilian originally posed or is it the larger and more complicated question of wholeness versus separatism? If it is simply the former then the question should be obvious. Its clear that ability and intelligence don't bring with them morals or ethics. This is illustrated all too often today by white collar criminals who were the smartest in their field. If the Q Question is the larger issue of wholeness versus separatism then the question is not so clear. Its not even clear that we are asking a single question rather than a family of questions. Perhaps what we are asking about is a philosophical leaning towards looking at things whole or looking at the parts of a thing. But, if we take the question for what it is, the answer I lean towards is the same answer that Lanham leans towards. The answer is that a wholeness of analysis and approach is generally better than a 'parts' approach. When you take things apart and only look at the part then the part often lose the meaning that they had when they were part of the whole. If a human heart were found on the ground without any knowledge of what it was would people really be able to figure out what its function was? Would people even begin to understand how it worked? The answer then, to the Q Question, would seem to be "no". From books-owner Tue Feb 27 02:45:00 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA49685 for books-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 02:44:59 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA09230 for books; Mon, 26 Feb 1996 21:44:56 -0500 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199602270244.VAA09230@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: one more short thing to read To: books Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 21:44:56 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1018 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Here's one paragraph from one paper: read, digest, and be prepared to comment: There is, however, a much stronger argument for teaching the Great Books, I believe: Common education. If all the youth of the United States were to grow up with a common education (and, even moreso, a common *experience*; for, education should be an experience, not limited to the school hours!) then many of our tensions and other problems would vanish. If *everyone* grew up having studied the same books, as everyone did a century and a half ago, then everyone would have that same background needed to succeed in our society and would have that same experience that enables everyone to relate to everyone else. And the closest thing we have to a common education is the Great Books; the list, headed by the Bible (perhaps not the pagan Classics anymore!) and some Shakespeare, which most students do read. This is why we must continue with teaching the Great Books, not because of the "civic virtue" which Lanham thinks is there. From books-owner Tue Feb 27 07:47:59 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA71232 for books-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 07:47:58 GMT Received: from netnews.upenn.edu (NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.35.31]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA15931 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 02:47:55 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by netnews.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA15946; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 02:48:12 -0500 To: mod-upenn-classics-cultbook@netnews.upenn.edu Path: blue.seas.upenn.edu!mniaz From: mniaz@blue.seas.upenn.edu (SALMAN NIAZ) Newsgroups: upenn.classics.cultbook Subject: Bistable Situation Date: 27 Feb 1996 07:48:09 GMT Organization: University of Pennsylvania Lines: 4 Message-ID: <4gucvp$f78@netnews.upenn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: blue.seas.upenn.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2-upenn1.3] Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Lanham talks of the bistable nature of things. Could someone shed more light on it, i am "dazed" by the argument /msn/ From books-owner Tue Feb 27 07:57:02 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13697 for books-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 07:57:02 GMT Received: from netnews.upenn.edu (NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.35.31]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA22396 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 02:56:59 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by netnews.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA20251; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 02:57:16 -0500 To: mod-upenn-classics-cultbook@netnews.upenn.edu Path: blue.seas.upenn.edu!mniaz From: mniaz@blue.seas.upenn.edu (SALMAN NIAZ) Newsgroups: upenn.classics.cultbook Subject: Re: one more short thing to read Date: 27 Feb 1996 07:57:15 GMT Organization: University of Pennsylvania Lines: 29 Message-ID: <4gudgr$f78@netnews.upenn.edu> References: <199602270244.VAA09230@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: blue.seas.upenn.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2-upenn1.3] Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk In this argument, somehow i feel that the person is concerned with book as the major part of learning. In my opinion, there is more to experience and learning than common education. I feel that Lanham's argument of "civic virtue" is a valid one. After all what are the possible ways that we may learn something for the first time: see someone do it, being told how to do it, make a mistake and learn or read it somewhere. This is where the Great Books provide a civic service by signifying the virtuous nature of the great books. Allow me to put forward the holy books as an example. What might be the purpose in reading these books, "teaching" it to children. In my opinion, these books contain a "right" way and thereby they contain a "civic virtue" which is obtained when they are read. /msn/ : There is, however, a much stronger argument for teaching : the Great Books, I believe: Common education. If all the youth of the : United States were to grow up with a common education (and, even moreso, : a common *experience*; for, education should be an experience, not : limited to the school hours!) then many of our tensions and other : problems would vanish. If *everyone* grew up having studied the same : books, as everyone did a century and a half ago, then everyone would have : that same background needed to succeed in our society and would have that : same experience that enables everyone to relate to everyone else. And the : closest thing we have to a common education is the Great Books; the list, : headed by the Bible (perhaps not the pagan Classics anymore!) and some : Shakespeare, which most students do read. This is why we must continue : with teaching the Great Books, not because of the "civic virtue" which : Lanham thinks is there. From books-owner Tue Feb 27 08:40:13 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA54862 for books-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 08:40:12 GMT Received: from netnews.upenn.edu (NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.35.31]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA37961 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 03:40:10 -0500 Received: from mail2.sas.upenn.edu (smfriedm@MAIL2.SAS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.26.33]) by netnews.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA16369 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 03:40:26 -0500 Received: (from smfriedm@localhost) by mail2.sas.upenn.edu (8.7.3/SAS 8.05) id DAA28891; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 03:40:26 -0500 (EST) From: smfriedm@sas.upenn.edu (steven morgan friedman) Posted-Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 03:40:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199602270840.DAA28891@mail2.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: one more short thing to read To: mniaz@blue.seas.upenn.edu (SALMAN NIAZ) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 03:40:25 -0500 (EST) Cc: mod-upenn-classics-cultbook@netnews.upenn.edu In-Reply-To: <4gudgr$f78@netnews.upenn.edu> from "SALMAN NIAZ" at Feb 27, 96 07:57:15 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk I have long thought that a common education/common cultural experience for all the youth of our nation is the only true way to go about making the United States the great nation it has the potential to be. This is one of my strongest beliefs, and I was the one who wrote the original paragraph Professor O'Donnell quoted. Seeing the interest in my idea, I thought I would elaborate on it a bit for you all, and comment on Salman's comments. In order for any nation-state to achieve its potential as a great nation, it needs to common cultural identity. History proves this time and time again. Instilling a common -- yet pluralistic -- culture in the United States, while possible, would be a vast undertaking and a challenge which I am convinced we can live up to. It is not limited to everyone studying the same books, et c., rather, a common bond must be forged. While this bond is almost always forged in wartime (both Wars and Vietnam, for example), it is entirely possible to do so with drastic national movements in peacetime. I can go into more detail with some of my specific ideas if any of you are interested; let me know if you are. Failing not to be unsuccessful in not being unclear, SALMAN NIAZ wrote: * * In this argument, somehow i feel that the person is concerned with book * as the major part of learning. In my opinion, there is more to experience * and learning than common education. Absolutely! This is why I said in my original paragraph that there is so much more to a common experience than just studying the same books. We agree on this point, Salman. Re-read my initial paragraph, it's quoted below. * I feel that Lanham's argument of "civic virtue" is a valid one. After all * what are the possible ways that we may learn something for the first time: * see someone do it, being told how to do it, make a mistake and learn or * read it somewhere. No! The only way to really learn (i.e. "internalize") something is to do it or to see it yourself -- not "being told how to do it" or "read[ing] it somewhere". This is why the argument that you can learn "civic virtue" from some books falls -- you must learn it through experience. All the books do is contribute to this common experience. [Note to Sarah: Please don't take my saying "No!" to Salman the wrong way. I think (I hope!) Salman realizes I'm not attacking him personally, just having a friendly disagreement :)] This is where the Great Books provide a civic service * by signifying the virtuous nature of the great books. * Allow me to put forward the holy books as an example. What might be the * purpose in reading these books, "teaching" it to children. In my opinion, * these books contain a "right" way and thereby they contain a "civic * virtue" which is obtained when they are read. I think the holy books prove my argument. The Bible is *not* studied because of its moral code -- it is studied because of the tradition and the common bond with everyone else in your group/religion. I.E. if you studied the Bible for virtue, you would see what a horrible person King David was. Or how the early Jews and Christians were pagans. These are clearly not the "right" way in our modern interpretation of the Bible. So the Bible is not taught to instill these values (which are long dead), rather, it is taught so you have a common set of knowledge and a common set of beliefs and a common background with all your fellow co-religionists. Again, this proves the importance of the common experience instead of the "civic virtue." [I'm sorry for using the Bible as my only example, but I know too little about the holy books of any other religion to make any valid comments on them.] Steve * * /msn/ * * : There is, however, a much stronger argument for teaching * : the Great Books, I believe: Common education. If all the youth of the * : United States were to grow up with a common education (and, even moreso, * : a common *experience*; for, education should be an experience, not * : limited to the school hours!) then many of our tensions and other * : problems would vanish. If *everyone* grew up having studied the same * : books, as everyone did a century and a half ago, then everyone would have * : that same background needed to succeed in our society and would have that * : same experience that enables everyone to relate to everyone else. And the * : closest thing we have to a common education is the Great Books; the list, * : headed by the Bible (perhaps not the pagan Classics anymore!) and some * : Shakespeare, which most students do read. This is why we must continue * : with teaching the Great Books, not because of the "civic virtue" which * : Lanham thinks is there. * ______________________ steven morgan friedman http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~smfriedm Mean People Suck From books-owner Tue Feb 27 22:25:17 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA47621 for books-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 22:25:11 GMT Received: from netnews.upenn.edu (NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.35.31]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA35324 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 17:25:06 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by netnews.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA13507; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 17:25:22 -0500 To: mod-upenn-classics-cultbook@netnews.upenn.edu Path: mail2.sas.upenn.edu!aromano From: aromano@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Allen J Romano) Newsgroups: upenn.classics.cultbook Subject: thoughts on common education Date: 27 Feb 1996 22:25:21 GMT Organization: University of Pennsylvania Lines: 55 Message-ID: <4h00ch$eij@netnews.upenn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: mail2.sas.upenn.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2-upenn1.3] Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk I was struck during our discussion in class today about how tempting it seemed to try to find some tangible, linear, "I can point to it" sort of 'content' or 'stuff' as the source of the inherent value of education. The common experience of Great Books seems to be really just an institutionalized method of pointing to a certain quantity of 'stuff' with which someone can, in theory, become a better person. Either the books are good in themselves or they are the common 'stuff' which facilitate "better" interaction (again, in theory). In the case of a Penn education, I realize that I immediately tried to find the value of this education in somehow finite and immutable facts and experiences. As was pointed out, the experiences or moral conditioning could happen anywhere and therefore are not inherently the source of value of a university education. I was looking at some form of experience or moral conditioning as a linear and inflexible tool. There are certain ways to act and think and certain larger world views to always take into account and then there is a linear and direct way in which all this information can be applied in every circumstance so as to yeild the right thing to do or the enlightened way to think. Lanham suggests that the value of education isn't solely in this 'stuff.' The content of the Great Books can provide a common sense of history or knowledge but as inert and linear forms of 'stuff' they can't provide any basis for morals and personal or social betterment. If we look at education in terms of the static and almost materialistic 'stuff' that it provides to a student, then in the same way, the very existance of this 'stuff' (experiences, knowledge of history/philosophy/literature, mastery of a language, etc.) cannot be the impetus behind any value in education. I would suggest that the value of education lies in its dynamic nature. the value lies in the way a system of education CAN (that is to say, ideally WILL) work to provide a certain amount of 'stuff' and at the same time provide the tools to analyse this 'stuff' itself and then actively switch between the 'stuff' in itself and the use, meaning, implications, moral lessons, etc. suggested in this 'stuff.' Now, i know that I'm just rehashing Lanham's whole business about looking at one point AT and at the same time THROUGH. (chap. 3) I think though that this idea must be kept in mind. doesn't it seem unnatural to say that education is just the knowledge of history or just the skill of computer programming or just the perspective of a larger world? If morals are looked at as an "I have to do 'x' in situation 'y' by the moral rule E," then they too become just another form of 'stuff.' A university then asks you to actively engage this 'stuff' (I think this is along the lines of what Sarah was saying at some point). But eventually, everything that is used as a tool can be looked at as itself a unit of defineable 'stuff.' However, the process itself of questioning and examining and even the process of looking and the process of looking are all dynamic. It is the type of active and dynamic engagement with 'stuff' that is the inherent value of a university. By this I mean that the type of questioning and the environment for questioning provided specifically at a university, as opposed to the dynamic questioning and examination provided anywhere else, is what holds some value for betterment. Allen (realizing that the thing he really wanted to say was contained in the last two sentences... so, sorry to clog your mailboxes.) From books-owner Wed Feb 28 00:00:36 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12079 for books-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 1996 00:00:31 GMT Received: (from jod@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA52266 for books; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 19:00:28 -0500 From: "James O'Donnell" Message-Id: <199602280000.TAA52266@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: comment please To: books Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 19:00:28 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 425 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Here's the paragraph I picked out on screen today; I believe that Ramus was right, to an extent. The answer to the originally posed Q Question, "is the perfect orator ... a good man as well as a good orator?", is a resounding "no". The skill or speaker has nothing to do with the character or ethics of the person just as a person's intelligence has nothing to do with the person's moral and ethical background. Comment? From books-owner Thu Feb 29 03:35:57 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA14739 for books-outgoing; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 03:35:51 GMT Received: from netnews.upenn.edu (NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.35.31]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA59786 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 1996 22:35:48 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by netnews.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA17757; Wed, 28 Feb 1996 22:36:04 -0500 To: mod-upenn-classics-cultbook@netnews.upenn.edu Path: mail1.sas.upenn.edu!aromano From: aromano@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Allen J Romano) Newsgroups: upenn.classics.cultbook Subject: cool site Date: 29 Feb 1996 03:36:03 GMT Organization: University of Pennsylvania Lines: 12 Message-ID: <4h36v3$dok@netnews.upenn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: mail1.sas.upenn.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2-upenn1.3] Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk The Spleen: http://www.mcad.edu/home/faculty/szyhalski/Piotr This is kindof strange and I'm not sure what it is really doing, but i'll never think of the spleen in the same way again. When you get there, don't do anything and let the page reload itself a few times -- it reveals a little bit about what he might be doing. (or, if you're impatient, the new pages are under .../Piotr1 and then .../Piotr2 and so forth) Allen From books-owner Thu Feb 29 03:57:31 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA57033 for books-outgoing; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 03:57:30 GMT Received: from icg.resnet.upenn.edu (mengwong@ICG.RESNET.UPENN.EDU [130.91.192.190]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA33476 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 1996 22:57:27 -0500 Received: (from mengwong@localhost) by icg.resnet.upenn.edu (8.6.11/8.6.9) id WAA08314 for books@ccat.sas; Wed, 28 Feb 1996 22:58:04 -0500 Message-Id: <199602290358.WAA08314@icg.resnet.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: comment please To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 22:58:04 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199602280000.TAA52266@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> from "James O'Donnell" at Feb 27, 96 07:00:28 pm From: mengwong@icg.resnet.upenn.edu (Meng Weng Wong) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 761 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk um. i see we're all in some equivalent of gaze-avoidance here. :) my comment: yes, he was right. nothing has to do with anything else. ramus was big on specialization. so in dividing up the original rhetoric into (a lessened verbal rhetoric + philosophy) ramus began the split that led to anthony blunt. | | Here's the paragraph I picked out on screen today; | | I believe that Ramus was right, to an extent. The answer to the originally | posed Q Question, "is the perfect orator ... a good man as well as a good | orator?", is a resounding "no". The skill or speaker has nothing to do with | the character or ethics of the person just as a person's intelligence has | nothing to do with the person's moral and ethical background. | | Comment? | From books-owner Thu Feb 29 04:04:35 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA67947 for books-outgoing; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 04:04:33 GMT Received: from icg.resnet.upenn.edu (mengwong@ICG.RESNET.UPENN.EDU [130.91.192.190]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA34146 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 1996 23:04:30 -0500 Received: (from mengwong@localhost) by icg.resnet.upenn.edu (8.6.11/8.6.9) id XAA08583 for books@ccat.sas; Wed, 28 Feb 1996 23:05:12 -0500 Message-Id: <199602290405.XAA08583@icg.resnet.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: one more short thing to read To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 23:05:12 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199602270840.DAA28891@mail2.sas.upenn.edu> from "steven morgan friedman" at Feb 27, 96 03:40:25 am From: mengwong@icg.resnet.upenn.edu (Meng Weng Wong) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1583 Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk why books, in particular, and not movies? tv shows? in no particular order: the breakfast club heathers e.t. indiana jones and the last sequels pulp fiction natural born killers princess bride ghostbusters bill and ted (and to a lesser extent, wayne's world) 2001 bambi (or other disney movie) star wars trilogy brady bunch scooby doo knight rider (for the geek crowd) sesame street fraggle rock the a-team three's company cheers seinfeld the cosby show (and different strokes) these shows arguably provide the cultural bond that books used to -- and they unify across more classes than the Great Books ever did. the great books were limited to the aristocracies. these movies and tv shows are the staple of the bourgeois masses, no? Failing not to be unsuccessful in not being pointlessly complexified, smf writes: | In order for any nation-state to achieve its potential as a great nation, | it needs to common cultural identity. History proves this time and time | again. Instilling a common -- yet pluralistic -- culture in the United | States, while possible, would be a vast undertaking and a challenge which | I am convinced we can live up to. It is not limited to everyone studying | the same books, et c., rather, a common bond must be forged. While this | bond is almost always forged in wartime (both Wars and Vietnam, for | example), it is entirely possible to do so with drastic national | movements in peacetime. I can go into more detail with some of my | specific ideas if any of you are interested; let me know if you are. From books-owner Thu Feb 29 04:26:28 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA60457 for books-outgoing; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 04:26:27 GMT Received: from netnews.upenn.edu (NETNEWS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.35.31]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA67105 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 1996 23:26:23 -0500 Received: (from news@localhost) by netnews.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA09676; Wed, 28 Feb 1996 23:26:39 -0500 To: mod-upenn-classics-cultbook@netnews.upenn.edu Path: mail2.sas.upenn.edu!aromano From: aromano@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Allen J Romano) Newsgroups: upenn.classics.cultbook Subject: Re: comment please Date: 29 Feb 1996 04:26:38 GMT Organization: University of Pennsylvania Lines: 28 Message-ID: <4h39tu$aam@netnews.upenn.edu> References: <199602280000.TAA52266@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: mail2.sas.upenn.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2-upenn1.3] Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk James O'Donnell (jod@ccat.sas.upenn.edu) wrote: : Here's the paragraph I picked out on screen today; : I believe that Ramus was right, to an extent. The answer to the originally : posed Q Question, "is the perfect orator ... a good man as well as a good : orator?", is a resounding "no". The skill or speaker has nothing to do with : the character or ethics of the person just as a person's intelligence has : nothing to do with the person's moral and ethical background. : Comment? Doesn't it sound like Ramus' answer of 'No' is in answer to a question like "is the good orator .. a good man as well as a good orator?" and not in answer to the question of whether a _perfect_ orator is a good man and a good orator? Maybe that avoids the question by defining some ideal "perfect" orator which consists of being both a good speaker and a good person. Yes, as we discussed in class, it is true that there is no inherent connection between a person's intelligence/skill and the person's morals/character. However, it seems as if being a good speaker (or writer or html writer) naturally compliments being a "moral" person so that the whole package encompassing the two would be reasonable to define as perfect or in some way 'better.' Oratory (or writing or html coding) can be good in itself; but it can be better when taken together with the social/public/human/dynamic/developing situation in which it is used. That is why a moral componant might be needed in the whole (or more complete) picture of oratory (or writing, etc.). Allen From books-owner Thu Feb 29 07:44:34 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA69662 for books-outgoing; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 07:44:32 GMT Received: from icg.resnet.upenn.edu (root@ICG.RESNET.UPENN.EDU [130.91.192.190]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA12055 for ; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 02:44:29 -0500 Received: from [130.91.172.55] (MATRIX.RESNET.UPENN.EDU [130.91.172.55]) by icg.resnet.upenn.edu (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id CAA15728; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 02:45:21 -0500 X-Sender: rourkem@postoffice.seas.upenn.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 02:44:45 -0500 To: mengwong@icg.resnet.upenn.edu (Meng Weng Wong) From: rourkem@seas.upenn.edu (Rourke McNamara) Subject: Re: comment please Cc: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Meng Weng Wong wrote: >| >| Here's the paragraph I picked out on screen today; >| >| I believe that Ramus was right, to an extent. The answer to the originally >| posed Q Question, "is the perfect orator ... a good man as well as a good >| orator?", is a resounding "no". The skill or speaker has nothing to do with >| the character or ethics of the person just as a person's intelligence has >| nothing to do with the person's moral and ethical background. >| >| Comment? >| >my comment: yes, he was right. nothing has to do with >anything else. ramus was big on specialization. so in >dividing up the original rhetoric into (a lessened verbal >rhetoric + philosophy) ramus began the split that led to >anthony blunt. How did Ramus' splitting of rhetoric LEAD to Anthony Blunt? It isn't as if rhetoric and intelligence WERE tied to morality and ethics before Ramus and his SAYING that they were different made them different. From books-owner Thu Feb 29 15:46:01 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA46897 for books-outgoing; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 15:45:59 GMT Received: from mail2.sas.upenn.edu (snorman@MAIL2.SAS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.26.33]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA64296 for ; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 10:45:55 -0500 Received: (from snorman@localhost) by mail2.sas.upenn.edu (8.7.4/SAS 8.05) id KAA07592 for books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 10:46:12 -0500 (EST) From: snorman@sas.upenn.edu (Sarah A Norman) Posted-Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 10:46:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199602291546.KAA07592@mail2.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: one more short thing . . To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (Book Class) Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 10:46:11 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk >why books, in particular, and not movies? tv shows? in no >particular order: > > the breakfast club > heathers > e.t. > indiana jones and the last sequels > pulp fiction > natural born killers > princess bride > ghostbusters > bill and ted > (and to a lesser extent, wayne's world) > 2001 > bambi (or other disney movie) > star wars trilogy > > brady bunch > scooby doo > knight rider (for the geek crowd) > sesame street > fraggle rock > the a-team > three's company > cheers > seinfeld > the cosby show > (and different strokes) > >these shows arguably provide the cultural bond that books >used to -- and they unify across more classes than the Great >Books ever did. the great books were limited to the >aristocracies. these movies and tv shows are the staple of >the bourgeois masses, no? Interesting point -- I think what really happens is that certain groups of people identify themselves and each other through common reference points -- ie, the "educated" know the greek books, the "teenagers" know rock music, "our parents" love the rolling stones, the "yuppie kids" know your above list . . . etc. Does everybody know who they are now? Good. (grin) Of course, this practice works largely on exclusion -- as coming from the middle of nowhere, I can certainly testify. I didn't watch TV as a kid, I've never seen "The Breakfast Club" -- I can't even TELL you how that alienates me from Penn. (I am of course kidding, but ya'll know what I'm getting at.) The first "cult of the book" may be religion -- where you have a bunch of people gettin together and calling themselves a group because they've all read the same book -- of course then they promtly disagree over that book, but they still are arguing about the same thing. Then we move to education -- if you have read x, y, and z, then you are educated (hopefully you have to think of something new to say about them, but sometimes that seems optional) -- and if you haven't, well , then you can't be in our club. Extend example ad nausaum and you have our society. If you don't have x reference, you can't join, and usually, we're going to make it hard for you to achieve x reference point. Often, we choose to segregate our soceity along just such these lines -- racially, religiously, age-wise, educationally . . . this may not be always bad, but I doubt that it is always good. -- Sarah, A Norman snorman@dept.english.upenn.edu http://www.english.upenn.edu/~snorman ---<--<@ "One must learn to be just morbid enough." -Kenneth Burke, "Collected Poems" From books-owner Thu Feb 29 16:06:58 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA68884 for books-outgoing; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 16:06:57 GMT Received: from mail1.sas.upenn.edu (smfriedm@MAIL1.SAS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.26.32]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA41992 for ; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 11:06:53 -0500 Received: (from smfriedm@localhost) by mail1.sas.upenn.edu (8.7.4/SAS 8.05) id LAA19531 for books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 11:07:09 -0500 (EST) From: smfriedm@sas.upenn.edu (steven morgan friedman) Posted-Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 11:07:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199602291607.LAA19531@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: one more short thing . . To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 11:07:09 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199602291546.KAA07592@mail2.sas.upenn.edu> from "Sarah A Norman" at Feb 29, 96 10:46:11 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk There are many possible manifestations of my common education theory. One is the great books. Another is my massive Big Brother/Big Sister idea. Another is movies (yes, Meng). Yet another is mandatory military service: Conscription. Last night I happened to be reading this week's *Economist*, and in an article about the draft in Europe, I was particularly struck by the following paragraph which summarizes my argument much more eloquently than I could: In the past, most countries have been reluctant to have fully professional armies because of what are regarded as conscription's social virtues. In Switzerland, a militia system that brings the country's men out for several weeks' military training every year until they reach their 50s is one of the things that hold together a population which speaks four different languages. In France, where the institution has been largely untouched since 1905, its defenders quote Napoleon: universal military service, they say, is essential to "preserve the nation's identity", to provide a "school of civic values", and to "maintain the vital link between the nation and its army". steven ______________________ steven morgan friedman http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~smfriedm Mean People Suck From books-owner Thu Feb 29 16:36:50 1996 Received: (from root@localhost) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA36639 for books-outgoing; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 16:36:45 GMT Received: from mail1.sas.upenn.edu (snorman@MAIL1.SAS.UPENN.EDU [165.123.26.32]) by ccat.sas.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA61971 for ; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 11:36:41 -0500 Received: (from snorman@localhost) by mail1.sas.upenn.edu (8.7.4/SAS 8.05) id LAA28532 for books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 11:36:57 -0500 (EST) From: snorman@sas.upenn.edu (Sarah A Norman) Posted-Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 11:36:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199602291636.LAA28532@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: comment To: books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (Book Class) Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 11:36:57 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-books@ccat.sas.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk >Here's the paragraph I picked out on screen today; > >I believe that Ramus was right, to an extent. The answer to the originally >posed Q Question, "is the perfect orator ... a good man as well as a good >orator?", is a resounding "no". The skill or speaker has nothing to do with >the character or ethics of the person just as a person's intelligence has >nothing to do with the person's moral and ethical background. Hmmm. We'd certainly like to think that with the aquistion of knowledge and ability comes the aquistion of morality . . . and yet this may be unwise as well as impractical. If one's morals are to be a pacifist, does that mean that there is NO war worth fighting? If a good orator can talk you into a "good" war (WWII, maybe?), they've just comprimised your sense of "good" -- but maybe it was for a "good" cause. What if they're a "bad" person, getting involved w/ said war for "bad" reasons, yet there's a "good" outcome? (ie, we manage to rescue at least a few of the concentration-camped people?) Lots of "bad" comes from "good" ideas and oration; sometimes "good" can come from "bad", as well. (The War Between the States -- they weren't really fighting over slavery, yet I really doubt that anybody today would say that legally getting rid of THAT disgusting little idea wasn't a good outcome to a horrible war. (notice I said "legal" -- which does not necessarily mean that it worked.) This is, of course, why I don't care for discussions that occur in terms of value judgements. There are some things I think we can agree on as being "bad" -- murder, for instance -- but when we kill people in cold blood in a war, we change the terminology in order to make it "good". There is no absolute moratily where there is liquid terminology. Sarah -- Sarah, A Norman snorman@dept.english.upenn.edu http://www.english.upenn.edu/~snorman ---<--<@ "One must learn to be just morbid enough." -Kenneth Burke, "Collected Poems"