![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 2007: Presentism
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@SHAKSPER.NET) Date: 11/28/07
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0788 Wednesday, 28 November 2007 [1] From: Nicole Coonradt <nmcoonradt@comcast.net> Date: Sunday, 25 Nov 2007 17:27:11 +0000 Subj: Re: SHK 18.0776 Presentism [2] From: William Godshalk <godshawl@email.uc.edu> Date: Sunday, 25 Nov 2007 14:40:20 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 18.0776 Presentism [3] From: Joseph Egert <tregej@yahoo.com> Date: Sunday, 25 Nov 2007 15:12:22 -0800 (PST) Subj: Re: SHK 18.0776 Presentism [4] From: Donald Bloom <dbloom@asms.net> Date: Monday, 26 Nov 2007 07:16:18 -0600 Subj: RE: SHK 18.0776 Presentism [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nicole Coonradt <nmcoonradt@comcast.net> Date: Sunday, 25 Nov 2007 17:27:11 +0000 Subject: 18.0776 Presentism Comment: Re: SHK 18.0776 Presentism I would be delighted to learn from T. Hawkes the details about self-destructive truth-seeking, which sounds hazardously exciting. (I'm picturing some kind of spontaneous combustion!) Given the antithetical nature of R. A. Cantrell's post today, perhaps Hawkes' reply (unwittingly?) is caught up somehow in what Cantrell describes. Best, Nicole Coonradt [2]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Godshalk <godshawl@email.uc.edu> Date: Sunday, 25 Nov 2007 14:40:20 -0500 Subject: 18.0776 Presentism Comment: Re: SHK 18.0776 Presentism Presentism's focus allows us to feel the harsher edge of history, writes Terry Hawkes. And since we live and know in the present, it cannot be otherwise. The idea that we can interpret the past from any other vantage point than the present, is simply wrong. Obviously, anyone who can transcend the present is in line for a Nobel prize in magic. Bill [3]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph Egert <tregej@yahoo.com> Date: Sunday, 25 Nov 2007 15:12:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: 18.0776 Presentism Comment: Re: SHK 18.0776 Presentism Terence Hawkes writes: >"Think, Joe, think. To seek, 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but >the truth, despite our limitations' is absurdly self-destructive. Our >'limitations' are exactly those which deprive us of the truth." I'm afraid, Terry, my (your?) limitations deprive me of the truth of your assertion, which I find not just absurdly self-destructive, but defeatist and pernicious in RA Cantrell's sense as well. Don't pee on us, Terry, and call it rain. Keep on riffin' though. Viva Orwell! Joe Egert [4]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald Bloom <dbloom@asms.net> Date: Monday, 26 Nov 2007 07:16:18 -0600 Subject: 18.0776 Presentism Comment: RE: SHK 18.0776 Presentism I seem to have two dogs in this fight. On the one hand, I agree that "isms" are responsible for a good deal of bad criticism (or, perhaps, non-criticism) by claiming for themselves all wisdom. The prophets preach to their disciples who learn the mystic jargon and memorize the holy tenets. Ten years later new prophets come along with new jargon and new disciples. On the other hand, I have an uneasy feeling that the ism in question may have a certain drift in the same direction. I think that both sides are suggesting that you build understanding by establishing your own limitations (including cultural givens) and working toward insights that transcend the limitations. But this may be too syncretistic a view. Cheers, don PS: Does that make it a three-dog fight? _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook, editor@shaksper.net The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net> DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor assumes no responsibility for them.
|
|
|||||