Old Email Archive

digest 1997-03-08 #001


11:27 PM 3/7/97 -0800
From: "Society for Literature & Science" 

Daily SLS Email Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 7 Mar 1997 08:16:15 -0800
From: phoebe@cs.cmu.edu
Subject: S&L in SLS
I'm a little bit behind the times, but I'm going to jump in the fray
nevertheless.  I've actually enjoyed all the posts on this subject - a
lot of interesting things have been said.  I'd like to take a moment to
address some of the questions people have been raising about SLS by
comparing them with the opposite point of view, how my field
(Artificial
Intelligence aka AI) has gone about trying (and generally failing) to
attract 'culturalists.'
The background: For the last several years, owing to a large extent to
the work of Joseph Bates, there has been a growing movement in AI to
synthesize AI with at least the arts and sometimes the humanities as
well.  This synthesis has generally taken the form of scientists going
off and reading books in the arts and then coming back and trying to
apply this stuff to their work; generally speaking, AI has not been
successful at getting artists and humanists to come and give them a
hand.
In this context:
1. Why would a scientist in his or her right mind want to have contact
with the humanities?
To a growing number of AI researchers it is becoming clear that the
default AI way of thinking about things is severely limiting when it
comes to applying AI to anything outside of the traditional sciences /
engineering.  This has become increasingly obvious since funding from
military organizations has been drying up and the lure of Hollywood
money is increasing.  AI for Art means AI for Entertainment which menas
big bucks when Sega comes to town - assuming, of course, that AI can
create artificial creatures and virtual worlds that are more engaging
than your typical old-fashioned artificial fighter pilot.  This is
where
the arts and humanities come in, for better or for worse; animators,
for
example, have a much better knowledge of what makes an engaging
character, and writers have a much better knowledge of what makes an
effective story.
2. What are the stumbling blocks in attracting scientists to SLS?
IMHO the problem is not necessarily that there is something
fundamentally wrong with L's in attracting S's.  In my experience the
exact same problems work the other way around.  For example, at last
year's major AI conference there was a session on AI, art, &
entertainment.  One of the speakers at the session talked about
automatic generation of poetry and spent at least 5 minutes discussing
why no good work had ever been done in the history of all poetry by
anyone with a literary degree.  During the question & answer session
he
actually received a number of compliments from the audience for having
"put those poetry people in their place!"  Given an atmosphere
like
this, how on earth were humanists supposed to feel at home at this
conference (and, in fact, very few if any ever come)?
To generalize, it seems to me that the number one way to make the
disciplinary other feel at home at SLS or any other conference is to
realize *that they will be there*, and to address one's talk in such a
way as not to explicltly alienate them.  The flip side is that it is
also good to develop a thick skin; if you are interested in
interdisciplinary communication there's no point in being simply turned
off by things that are less than fortunately expressed.
3. How can we deal with the 'two cultures' problem?
Appropriately enough, I am of two minds about the two cultures issue.
On the one hand, having been trained at the PhD level in both cultural
theory and computer science, I cannot overstate the differences in
intellectual training between the humanities and the sciences.  IMHO
the
differences in thinking and in valuation of types of knowledge is so
gross that any discussion between the humanities and the sciences that
does not take them into account is bound to fail.  This seems to me to
be part of the problem in the application of the humanities to AI -
many
scientists read the applicable non-scientific works quite superficially
and then try to implement them without having any real respect for the
way in which their work will have to change to truly address the values
and beliefs of humanists.
On the other hand, it is equally clear that there is no 'one culture'
in
either the humanities or the sciences!  Humanists do not think like
scientists, but neither do scientists think like scientists or
humanists
like humanists.  It seems to me that this holds the key to dealing with
cultural clashes within SLS and in general - the simplistic categories
of 'science' of one sort and 'literature' of another simply do not hold
water.  Perhaps it is time to think about alliances that work across
the
broader camps based on individuals who find their similarities in
thinking transcend the camps to which they individually belong....
One final addition to an already-too-long letter: the most effective
interdisciplinary atmosphere I have ever seen was at the International
Symposium for Electronic Art.  Artists, scientists, engineers, and
theoreticians mingled and discussed freely, apparently connected beyond
their intellectual differences by an investment in creating particular
artefacts.  This meant that artists had a deep understanding of
technology that went beyond merely good or merely bad, while at the
same
time understanding how technology interfaces with its social and
cultural context.  Technologists and artists shared an interest in and
information about technology; theorists and artists did the same with
understanding the implications of technological art.  Perhaps, as some
have suggested, the inclusion of (yet another discipline of)
(electronic?) art would help to bring some depth to the so-far
apparently two-sided conversation.
Phoebe Sengers
Department of Computer Science /
Program in Literary and Cultural Theory
Carnegie Mellon University
phoebe@cs.cmu.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 7 Mar 1997 08:49:18 -0800
From: amato@charlie.cns.iit.edu
Subject: Re: S&L in SLS
just to second what phoebe has just posted---and it doesn't surprise me
at
all that the 'international symposium for electronic art' should provide
a
forum conducive to interaction among numerous disciplinary
'cultures'...
which is why i indicated that the occasional orientation toward
hypermedia
at sls has provided me with the most potential (and satisfaction) for
crossing my own disciplinary wires...
as to that guy who made the crack about 'degreed' poets -- i'm a bit
dumbstruck, given the history of twentieth century arts... w/o wishing
in
the least to advocate academic preparation for the pursuit of poetry,
all's
i can say is
SHEESH///
best,
joe
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 7 Mar 1997 09:43:10 -0800
From: Joseph Duemer 
Subject: Re: S&L in SLS
The phrase "degreed poets" is as absured as "degreed
microbiologist."
One can pursue either discipline w/ or w/o a degree. But what's really
at work is a discredited Romantic notion that the poet is supposed to
speak somehow unconsciously, "from the heart," as if the poet
did not
really have a mind. Which is what Plato claimed. Should we go back to
the vogue of lionizing--& exploiting-- "peasant poets" so
common in the
19c?
- --
- --
Joseph Duemer
School of Liberal Arts
Clarkson University
Potsdam NY 13699
315-262-2466
"Hey, Joe, where you goin' with that gun in your hand?"
--The Trogs
"Poets are the only people to whom love is not only a crucial,
but an indispensable experience, which entitles them to
mistake it for a universal one."
-- Hannah Arendt
"People do not deserve to have good writing, they are so
pleased with bad."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 7 Mar 1997 11:04:25 -0800
From: Felice Aull 
Subject: science-humanities discussion
I am timidly going to put my two cents in. I am a "medical
scientist"
(physiologist) who has in recent years developed an interest and worked
in the
area known as Medical Humanities, especially in the sub-section of
literature,
arts, and medicine. This field is populated by individuals who have
formal
training in literature (Ph.D.s in English lit for example), MDs who have
an
interest in literature and/or who write  poetry or other literary works,
some
with both MDs and either MAs or PhDs in literature,philosophy, ethics--
as well
as nurses, and others who have literary inclinations (like myself).
While there is some distrust between the humanities-trained and the
medical/scientifically trained among us (some of the English lit people
don't
think the others are qualified to do any kind of literary analysis, and
some of
the MDs don't think the literature-trained are qualified to discuss
medical
issues), the sense of common purpose usually overrides the distrust.
Besides, it
is clear the field is thriving even as /because it accomodates people
with
diverse backgrounds. Anyway, the English lit people couldn't keep the
medical
types out! Paradoxically, some of the English-lit-trained people are
finding
that they are no longer considered "pure" enough by their
English lit
colleagues.
There is of course the tradition of the physician-writer (Chekhov,
Williams,
Percy, etc etc). But the main point is that the Medical Humanities
people are
all convinced that medical/health care education and training is better
when it
includes literature and the arts (and philosophy, etc). Books (Kathryn
Montgomery Hunter's The Narrative Structure of Medical Knowledge; The
Body and
the Text, eds. B. Clarke and W. Aycock) and a number of recent papers in
medical
journals elaborate on why literary analysis, creative writing, and
analysis/discussion of film and art are proving (we believe) useful in
medical
education, and on why there is a natural affinity between medicine and
the
humanities.
So I am finding the discussion in SLS both interesting and surprising. 
And
since I myself am planning to get more formal training in
literature/cultural
studies (in a Master's Program), I am  paying particular attention to
the
discussion.
Felice Aull, Ph.D.
Dept. of Physiology & Neuroscience
NYU School of Medicine
550 First Ave.
New York, NY 10016
tel. 212-263-5401
FAX: 686-9060 (Physiology)
FAX: 212-263-8542 (Literature, Arts, & Medicine)
e-mail: aullf01@popmail.med.nyu.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 7 Mar 1997 12:19:09 -0800
From: Linda Bergmann 
Subject: Re: science-humanities discussion
I found Felice Aull's post both heartening and familiar.  Some of the
most
interesting discussions I had at my previous institution, the Illinois
Institute of Technology, were at the Center for the Study of Ethics in
the
Professions lunch meetings. The Center director would pose a question or
a
case, and a highly interdisciplinary bunch of faculty, from
engineering,
physics, chemistry, philosophy, history, English, and Social
Sciences--and
occasionally law or business--would haggle them out.  The Center
director
was always able to maintain a conversation--the goal was to sort out
different assumptions and disciplinary differences, not to resolve the
issue in any one way.  The goal was to understand the ways different
professions approached and resolve the problems, not to criticize them.
But the limitatation of these  discussions was ebedded in their function
as
exploratory--not critical.  We were engaged in exploring our own and
other
profession's values and practices--not in critiquing them.
And I do think there is a place for analysis and critique of these
values
and practices--as I believe there is a place for parody, my previous
post
notwithstanding. The question for SLS may be what kind a place  the
association and its conference is, or should be.  The last conference
keynote seems to have been bent on criticism, and offensive to those
bent
on exploration.
Linda S. Bergmann
Associate Professor of English and Director of Writing Across the
Curriculum
University of Missouri-Rolla
Rolla, MO  65409
(573) 341-4685
bergmann@umr.edu