Old Email Archive
Return to old archive list
log 12_2_94-12_31_94
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 03:31:14 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Michael Bernard Strong
Subject: techno/text query
Dear List Readers:
I hope you can point me to some good material...
I'm creating the syllabus for my first-year writing class this
spring. I want my students to read and write about texts that address
how technologies affect human experiences, both in fiction and
historically. I hope the course encourages productive disciplinary
border
crossings, and I am looking for materials -- essays, novels,
journal & magazine articles, films -- that:
...are models for writing about technology and science in material,
historical, and philosophical terms. Examples:
Lewis Thomas Donna Haraway Stephen Jay Gould
Bruno Latour Walter Benjamin Teresa de Lauretis
Paul Feyerabend Benedict Anderson Ben Franklin
...address the relationships between technology, power,
subjectivity, history, consciousness, and economy. Examples:
_Frankenstein_ _Brave New World_ _1984_
_Blade Runner_ _2001: A Space Odyssey_ _Neuromancer_
Milton: on gunpowder & Galileo
Walter Ong on language & literacy
Deleuze/Guattari on rhizomes/language grids and mapping
...address other related issues of, say, ethics and...
biotechnology / genetics / medical research
the internet
television
military research
I am also thinking about how literary texts imagine or respond to
technological changes (including issues of gender, race, class,
sexuality,
economy, nation-hood and nationalism) for a dissertation so please do
not
hold back from suggesting more theoretical or difficult material that
might not be right for a first year class. I value ideas on all
possible
dimensions of this project.
Please respond to: mstrong@dept.english.upenn.edu
Thank you!
Mike Strong
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 04:44:04 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: "Mark A. Turian"
Subject: Re: techno/text query
In-Reply-To: <199412020832.AA07272@nfs2.digex.net> from
"Michael Bernard
Strong" at Dec 2, 94 03:31:14 am
Mike,
My current favorite literary scientist is Erwin Chargaff. He is known
to
most biology students as the 'discoverer' of 'Chargaff's Rule' of base
pairing in DNA (adenine/thiamine, guanine/cytosine appear in 1/1
ratios).
Chargaff did his biochemistry in 40 hour weeks, and was a man of
letters
the rest of the time and fluent in several languages. His discriptive
prose is often literature.
As his career progressed, he became increasingly critical of the
biology
we began to practice, indeed of the practice of science itself. His
memoirs are the chronicle of an intense mind as it turns acerbic
towards
its former object of study.
In any case, I recommend 'Heraclitean Fire' as a source text, and
include
a passage below:
"Many people entering the sciences nowadays are being driven by the
winds
of fasion -- something from which I was preserved completely in my
youth
-- and they will try to attach themselves to a man who follows the
trend
of the moment or, even better, who is himself one of the trend-setters.
A few of these young people may, in the course of their apprenticeship,
become scientists, but most never will. They will turn into
specialists. What form of individuation the production of a true
scientist may comprise, I cannot say; but among the thousands of
practitioners of science I have met in my life, there were perhaps
twenty
or thirty to whom I should have granted the name of scientist. I have
often doubted whether I would have included myself among their number.
It is the sense of mystery that, in my opinion, drives the true
scientist; the same force, blindly seeing, deafly hearing,
unconsciously
remembering, that drives the larva into the butterfly. If he has not
experienced, at least a few times in his life, this cold shudder down
his
spine, this confrontation with an immense, invisible face whose breath
moves him to tears, he is not a scientist. The blacker the night, the
brighter the light. Who knew this better than San Juan de la Cruz when
in the dark night he sent his soul on its eternal search:
... sin otra luz y guia
sino la que en el corazon ardia.
(... with no other light and guide/except the light that was burning in
the heart.)
Are we not forever burning, tied to the stakes of Giordano Bruno or
Servetus? Are we not forever rotting in Galilei's dungeons? Is not
each
of us dying of thirst in his own cloud of unknowing? So many
questions;
no answers."
-- from "Hericlitean Fire", pp.114-115
Please let me know if this is up your alley --- and of course, I hope
you
post your final decisions to the list! Additionally, I may have a few
other selections when there are a few more minutes to type them.
Regards,
Mark Turian
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 04:49:53 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: "Mark A. Turian"
Subject: Re: techno/text query
In-Reply-To: <199412020832.AA07272@nfs2.digex.net> from
"Michael Bernard
Strong" at Dec 2, 94 03:31:14 am
Mike ...
I almost want to take your course!
Please also consider:
Martin Heidegger's "The Question Concerning Technology"
Aeschylus "Prometheus Bound"
Bachelard "The New Scientific Spirit"
(he was one of Focault's teachers, you know)
mat
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 10:29:22 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Michael Bernard Strong
Subject: Re: techno/text query
In-Reply-To: <9412020949.AA10842@dept.english.upenn.edu> from
"Mark A. Turian"
at Dec 2, 94 04:49:53 am
Dear Mark - Thank you so much for your response. I have known for a
while that I needed to choose something from Heidegger, and am glad
that
you have made your suggestion. I also want to be able to use some
materials from the Greeks, so I am excited about looking at Aeschylus,
too, and I am sure that any teacher of Foucault will have something to
teach me, too.
Thanks again. I hope I can get back to you when I have read these
things
in order to talk about them.
Mike Strong
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 10:33:32 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Michael Bernard Strong
Subject: Re: techno/text query
In-Reply-To: <9412020943.AA42066@dept.english.upenn.edu> from
"Mark A. Turian"
at Dec 2, 94 04:44:04 am
Mark - I just read (in reverse order, of course) the first message you
sent, about Chargaff, and am pleased (in that i am looking for
excellent
writers/scientists/philosophers that i have *not* heard of) to say that
his name is entirely new to me. So thank you for that pointer, too.
Mike Strong
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 12:35:17 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Marcus Rice
Subject: Re: techno/text query
>...address the relationships between technology, power,
> subjectivity, history, consciousness, and economy.
Examples:
> _Frankenstein_ _Brave New World_ _1984_
> _Blade Runner_ _2001: A Space Odyssey_ _Neuromancer_
>
Hi Mike. Another SF novel you might try is Asimov's "I,
Robot", or any of
the others in his Robots series. Unlike the examples you gave, Asimov's
books paint a relatively positive picture of the high-technology
future.
They deal a lot with how robots could affect our culture and social
customs. They might also give the reader some good insights on the
ethics
of artificial intelligence. And they're great reads, of course.
-- marcus
..........................
: [] . . Marcus Rice .....!............................
: marcus@cloud9.net : [] . . . Deep Thought . . . . .|
: N.Tarrytown, NY : Don't knock masturbation. |
: (914) 631-7526 : It's sex with someone I love. |
:_____________________: -- Woody Allen |
:________________________________|
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 19:08:06 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Guedon Jean-Claude
Subject: Re: techno/text query
In-Reply-To: <199412022003.AA29799@condor.CC.UMontreal.CA> from
"Mark A.
Turian" at Dec 2, 94 04:49:53 am
>
> Mike ...
>
> I almost want to take your course!
>
> Please also consider:
>
> Martin Heidegger's "The Question Concerning
Technology"
> Aeschylus "Prometheus Bound"
> Bachelard "The New Scientific Spirit"
> (he was one of Focault's teachers, you
know)
>
> mat
>
Sorry to disagree, but, so far as I know, Bachelard was not Foucault's
teacher, he deeply influenced Canguilhem who led an important seminar
in Paris that Foucault (but also Michel Serres and Althusser, among
others)
followed. Canguilhem was Foucault's thesis director.
Best,
Jean-Claude Guedon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jean-Claude Guedon Tel. 514-343-6208
Professeur titulaire Fax: 514-343-2211
Departement de litterature comparee Surfaces
Universite de Montreal Tel. 514-343-5683
C.P. 6128, Succursale "A" Fax.
514-343-5684
Montreal, Qc H3C 3J7 ftp ftp.umontreal.ca
Canada guedon@ere.umontreal.ca
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 22:00:16 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Marcus Rice
Subject: Re: techno/text query
Hi Mike. Another SF novel you might try is Asimov's "I,
Robot", or any of
the others in his Robots series. Unlike the examples you gave, Asimov's
books paint a relatively positive picture of the high-technology
future.
They deal a lot with how robots could affect our culture and social
customs. They might also give the reader some good insights on the
ethics
of artificial intelligence. And they're great reads, of course.
Marcus
..........................
: [] . . Marcus Rice .....!............................
: marcus@cloud9.net : [] . . . Deep Thought . . . . .|
: N.Tarrytown, NY : Don't knock masturbation. |
: (914) 631-7526 : It's sex with someone I love. |
:_____________________: -- Woody Allen |
:________________________________|
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 10:54:57 MET
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Soeren Pold
Organization: The Humanities, Aarhus University
Subject: Re: techno/text query
> Dear List Readers:
> I hope you can point me to some good material...
>
> I'm creating the syllabus for my first-year writing class
this
> spring. I want my students to read and write about texts that
address
> how technologies affect human experiences, both in fiction and
> historically.
Dear Mike
Your class sounds like a very interesting class, which I would love
to follow. I'm very interested in these topics, but from quite
another perspective. I've been studying the French 19.th. century
writer Honore de Balzac, who tried again and again to describe how
the new capitalistic mass-society worked, and how people reacted
in/to it. In "Le pere Goriot" he uses the classical
bildungsroman to
describe how the young hero Rastignac defies his father figures (the
mean pragmatic) Vautrin and Goriot (the old fashioned patriarch).
Rastignac creates his own new view on the parisian society using the
perspective of the panorama -- a perspective which combines reality,
realistic visions of reality and fiction. The panorama was at that
time a very fashionable example of the new culture-industry using
the latest technology, which Balzac thouroughly describes throughout
his novel. In this novel you'll find lots of material about how
technology and consciousness, gender, class, experience etc.
interrelates. I've written a book on Balzac, "Le pere
Goriot",
"La Peau de chagrin" (another Balzac novel) and these
subjects, which
has just come out in Denmark. The book is in Danish (unfortunately)
and is called "Parisisk Panorama" (Parisian Panorama).
From that study of Balzac I have developed my interests towards more
recent literary and philosophical studies. This spring I'll teach a
course where we're supposed to read things like Gibson, but instead
of only reading sci-fi I would like also to study new
realistic literature which seeks new perception in the ligth or in
the shadow of new technology. I'm thinking of `hyper-realistic'
literature such as Nicholson Baker ("The Mezzanine") and
Douglas
Coupland ("Generation X"). Or visions of informationsociety
without
information like Thomas Pynchon or nightmares of a commodity-
fetichisticism like Brett Easton Ellis. My theoretical basis is
Walter Benjamin, Michel Serres, Paul Virilio etc.
These are my plans, which I plan to develop into a thesis. Does
anybody have any suggestions?
I'll hope to hear more about your project.
Best wishes
----------------------------------------------
Soeren Pold
Herluf Trollesgade 24, st. th
DK-8200 Aarhus N
phone +45 8942 1817
Department of Comparative Literature
Center for Interdisciplinary Aesthetic Studies
University of Aarhus
----------------------------------------------
"What a great century"
Douglas Coupland in Legoland
"Hirnlego, hirnlego, hirnlego, hirnlego hirnlegoland"
Einstuerzende Neubauten
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 08:12:03 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: "David F. Bell, III"
Subject: Re: techno/text query
In-Reply-To: <199412050956.EAA22520@acpub.duke.edu>
> Rastignac creates his own new view on the parisian society using
the
> perspective of the panorama -- a perspective which combines
reality,
> realistic visions of reality and fiction. The panorama was at that
> time a very fashionable example of the new culture-industry using
> the latest technology, which Balzac thouroughly describes
throughout
> his novel. In this novel you'll find lots of material about how
> technology and consciousness, gender, class, experience etc.
> interrelates. I've written a book on Balzac, "Le pere
Goriot",
> "La Peau de chagrin" (another Balzac novel) and these
subjects, which
> has just come out in Denmark. The book is in Danish
(unfortunately)
> and is called "Parisisk Panorama" (Parisian Panorama).
Dear Soeren,
Your book sounds fascinating. Any chance any of its sections may have
appeared in French or English? I'm afraid Danish is beyond me... I've
been working on science and technology in Balzac, concentrating mainly
recently on Balzac's flirtations with statistical methods and thinking.
I'd love to see what you do with the notion of panorama.
David Bell
Duke University Department of Romance Studies
205 Language Building Box 90257 Durham NC 27708-0257
----------------------------------------------------------
Tel: 919-660-3110 Fax: 919-684-4029
Internet: dfbell@acpub.duke.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 07:26:18 -0600
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Joe Amato
Subject: from Andrew Russ, re SLS conference...
After returning from the SLS conference in New Orleans a lot of
thoughts
ran through my mind regarding the (percieved) battle between the
literary
theorists on the one hand and the scientists on the other hand. It
seemed the necessity to defend SLS against the attacks in Higher
Superstition got transformed into a we/they mentality among some on
both
sides of the cultural divide. So here are some reactions.
I think within SLS (i.e. among the oldtimers), the "big
schism" between
science as authoritative knowledge and literature as arcane theory
isn't taken too seriously. In panel discussions George Levine came
across
(to me) as quite supportive of and enthusiastic for science, and some
aspects of his plenary talk were, so to speak, rhetoric. He made some
good criticisms of Higher Superstition. Though for me to be sure, i
should
probably try to read the book and some of the reviews myself.
Among the newer SLS visitors, some are perhaps MLA people who
are more intersted in accumulating a vita chit more than in learning
about
science, and some are definitely scientists who like literature but
really
don't understand what is going on (Steve Weininger's analysis of them
at
the wrap-up session is probably a pretty good description). And
unfortunately these scientists are likely to confuse attacks on a
particular book with attacks on the authors and on science itself (and
throwing rhetoric around does not help matters much here). They are
also
likely to be confused by the situation that literature is open to many
interpretations without definite answers within multiples of paradigms
(you can even create your own) but simultaneously the study of
literature
has evolved jargon(s); in science serious study into a problemn be shown
to be
equivalent, so that it makes sense to say that a problem is generally
solved. In literature (and philosophy), problems are almost never
solved; in fact it may be that they can only be created, after all the
analysis of a text is another text subject to interpretation and
analysis. The analysis of an electron is not another electron.
I had a potentially (in my mind) really divisive bomb
that i could have thrown out in Saturday afternoon's session. In the
abstract for "Scientists Can't Dance", substitute the word
"black" (or perhaps
"gay" or "woman") for "scientist" and the
word "white" (or "straight" or "male")
for "humanist" or "literary scholar", and it reads a
lot like a right-wing
critique of affirmitive action. The point that raised in my mind is
that
maybe the cultural gap between scientists and humanists is very real and
deep
in ways that racial conflicts in this country are, with semiconscious
or
subconscious presumptions that can arise _even_without_ the holder of
those presumptions being aware of them. I.E. even sincere attempts at
good will can fail. I.E. this task is tougher than we thought. But in
saying
that i wouldn't want to accuse the membership of SLS of being
epistemological
racists. Especially since outside the society the epistemological (or
financial) heirarchy is generally reversed. (not to mention within the
National Association of Scholars, i imagine).
The next morning i saw someone had scrawled on a piece of paper
taped to one of the easels: "Literature People can't
Dance....Scientists
don't write drippy papers." Anonymous criticism is the mark of the
opressed,
perhaps? Or those who feel oppressed?
The divisive spirit made Thursday and Friday really trying for me. I
mean did i spend all that money to hear people fight? The scientist
luncheon
and gripe session was depressing. There was very little in Friday's
sessions
of real interest to me. And at my presentation Saturday morning there
were
5 or 6 people in the audience, only one of whom was not a scientist.
Friday
night i went through the abstract book and did some tallying:
Of 201 abstracts:
98 presenters identified themselves as mebers of English or Literature
departments. (50%)
20.5 presenters were scientists (about 10%).
Of the scientists, 8 were physicists.
10 or so were in philosophy or history or philosophy of science
programs
(5% of the total)
49 presenters were unidentified. A few i knew affiliations of i
counted in the appropriate departments (e.g. Frank Durham is one of the
8
physicists). (25%)
Of 60 sessions, 5 had 2 or more scientists involved. The
majority had 0 identified scientists (28, plus there were 44 sessions
where
some people's affiliations were unidentified, but none were known to be
in science). Only 16 sessions had even one scientist on the panel
(the
debate on the future of scientists in SLS, alas, was not one of these).
So anyway, it was pretty depressing. Scientists are not visible
enough in what the society does, and sometimes all too visible as a
minority
in the group.
But i did get to meet some new people, and strengthen contacts that
i needed to strengthen (including one PSU faculty member, and Brian
Rotman). I was especially glad to find out about Jay Lemke's work, as
it
may very well overlap with mine (i've
looked up his books in the library here already). And contacts with
people
like Sid Perkowitz and Kent Kraft and Joe Amato. I left with more ideas
of
things to do, if i can ever find the time to do them.
On the other hand, i really missed the presence of Charles
Bazerman, A.D. van Nostrand, and the rest of the rhetoric crowd.
We need the writing/composition oriented people to help bridge the gap
between theoretical speculation and the curriculum and instruction
issues that are the best hope of attracting somoe more scientists into
(not just "to", but "into") SLS. It was this group
that i felt i had
the most to profit from associating with. In spite of that, i still
got something of value in going to the meeting. The question for me
is can i afford to go to two conferences? SLS and the American
Association for Rhetoric of Science and Technology.
I actually left the meeting feeling like it was perhaps the best
one i'd been to, because of the more interesting things i got to see
and
hear on Saturday and Sunday, and because of the talking with people. I
am
worried about the future of SLS, though.
It takes time for real bonds to form between members that can lead
to real collaborations. And those kinds of collaborations really need
to
be set up for SLS to really work & become more than one discipline
talking
at another. A collaboration takes a lot of time to work out, and do
properly.
To be done properly the science has to be correct and fairly thorough
(else
it will seem irrelevant to the scientist -- analysing the discourse of
Omni magazine, or scientific American, or even Physics Today, is not
_really_
analyzing the discourse of scientists; it is analyzing communication
from
a scientist to a wider audience that is not in a position to
effectively
reciprocate (i suppose that in magazines like that there is always a
dimension of appeal to authority simply in the credentials the author
holds,
where as in a scientific journal the credentials are simply a licence
to
publish (not invested with authority)). At the same time, I can see
the
point of the discussion in the "scientists can't dance"
session in that
literature analysts do have some training that can be of value in
looking
into science, and properly done it can say surprising things about the
nature of science. And if one can put in the effort to do the science
right, one should also put in the effort on the literary side as well.
Thus scientists should realize that simply reading a lot of literature
does not make one an expert on reading.
In away, what the ultimate goal of science and literature is
is something very difficult. To take an analogy out of common physics
practice (by way of the Taylor Series), i will call the knowledge SLS
hopes
to make "second-order knowledge". First-order knowledge is
what you get
when you use the tools of one discipline which have been developed for
use in a particular area. Mastering first-order knowledge involves a
certain amount of specialization and learning of professional jargon.
Second-order knowledge is a combination of two fields. For
second-order
knowledge to achieve a similar level of depth, mastery of two fields is
involved. Thus it would seem that the hope for the most proficiency
would lie either in deep collaborations or in a willingness of one
person to learn the tools and language of another specialty. When
a literary person makes assumptions about what physicists believe as
their philosophy and then those assumptions appear very wrong or
simplistic to a physicist in the audience, then the physicist is
generally angry or alientated or dismissive. Similarly, a scientist
offering a simplistic analysis of literature would probably suffer the
disinterest of an audience among literary people.
I was thinking today that such surprising facts as the wave-particle
duality of matter was the result of people looking systematically and
carefully at a specific area of inquiry over and extended period of
time.
Why shouldn't systematic and serious inquiry into the
knowledge-fabrication
process also yield surprising and paradoxical results? That thought
makes
me all the more intersted in the subject. But for others it means
wondering
if what they are doing is right. (One interesting idea about philosophy
--
evaluating a philosophy not in terms of "truth" or
"rightness" but rather
in terms of how it allows its user to function. I.E. some
philosophical
attitudes, though shallow or false, may still allow scientists to do
good work (may even be very helpful), and the epistemelogical quality of
the
resulting research (the ends) sufficient to justify the means. It may
be
that given the non-finality of most textual research that some
consideration of this sort will be needed -- a scientist has to do his
science first and then consider his methods. (Though yeah there was a
lot
of that attitude in such dubious projects as building the bomb...))
Dissecting your own eye does not help you to see better. It just
hurts.
A lot of scientists view science literacy and education efforts as
necessary and helpful to build up interest in and support for science
(including, of course, financial support). They view science education
with a vested (and paternal) interest. The need to bulwark the support
of science is used to justify the attention given to science education
programs. In other words, science is good, and education must build
on (i mean that in two senses) that assumption. These scientists
honestly believe that research (including their own and their
colleagues)
is an inherently good thing and that anyone who is sufficiently
educated
and knowledgable will also believe it is an inherently good thing and
will thus support research. Scientists are not at all prepared to
believe that if you teach people honestly about science that they could
believe otherwise. They want science education to be science
cheerleading. I personally don't like that approach any more than
teaching science is always bad. Or always true or anti-god or... Thus
a
scientist that would not support the Superconducting Supercollider is a
traitor, and anyone who would criticise such projects, or worse yet,
teach others to consider them critically, is an enemy spreading false
gospel. I think real scientific education will run the risk that even
after you teach people science thoroughly, they may still come to the
level-headed conclusion that some science simply isn't worth the cost
or
effort. (On the other hand, establishing excessive bureaucratic
controls
to eliminate bad research would succeed best only at making more
paperwork. Such solutions often get dreamed up by people who don't
want
to take the time to learn about such research for themselves.) I think
it will take real courage in the scientific community to support real
science education, but it will at some point (and probably better
sooner
than later) become necessary since people will eventually distrust
science propaganda no matter how well disguised or intended.
Indeed a lot of the "new age" and "new tribal" stuff
the scientists
deplore may be a reaction to the fact that science has not built a
utopia
and answered all our problems. The old science-technology propaganda
failed and there is a backlash in some quarters (_not_ SLS).
Advertising
citing "science" and "scientific research" as
authority has not helped
at all. Real science education would teach that science has limited
areas of inquiry, and reaches limited answers. Some science may be
suggestive of other things, and it is seductive to think that way
(scientist as Pygmalion seduced by his own construction. ), but you
really have to be careful about extrapolating beyond the data.
Darwin's theory was about species, not societies. Relativity is not
relativism. The same quantum theory that brought us the uncertainty
principle led to the most exact tests (13 decimal places) of any
quantity in physics (perhaps up to a few years ago anyway). And chaos
theory
has become the latest social paradigm derived from science. Real
science
education should make people skeptical of these techutopias. I am
asking
for a trade of blind faith for real faith, if you will. Some say
science is the new religion, and there are those who try to sell it
as dogma. But religious cosmology fell precisely because of the
dogmatic
insistence of the church. Science should not make that mistake.
There is a Science Studies group coalescing here at Penn State,
and these kinds of concerns have been brought up within the group, and
by scientists, as well. Including complaints about the shallowness of
assumptions, or presumptions, made about who/what science/tists are at
some science studies presentations here and bringing up Higher
Superstition.
It seems to me that local groups such as these, with more regular
contacts,
are the best hope for bridging these gaps in understanding and doing
real
work in second-order knowledge. Short of that, strong internet
connections
are essential. But either way, a certain amount of collaboration
(perhaps not necessarily coauthorship) is necessary.
Well, that was a pretty long and rambling text-thing. If you
got this far i thank you for reading & hope it is of some interest
to
you. It ended up pretty general, but i think how and where it applies
to SLS is to some extent obvious, and to some extent a matter for
further
discussion.
Just my opinion (not PSU or the physics department's),
Andrew Russ
physics graduate student
the Pennsylvania State University
endwar@phys.psu.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 14:45:42 -0800
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: jal@PORTIA.CALTECH.EDU
Subject: SLS conference
I read Andrew Russ' message with much interest and some alarm. I have
been
hearing over the past few weeks about the developing rift at the SLS
meeting. (I was unable to attend--we had a history of science
conference
here that weekend that actually worked quite well at promoting
interactions
between scientists and historians, in spite of the fact that (or
perhaps
because?) most of the scientists who did participate had little
previous
experience of such interactions.) I didn't pick up much of that at the
one
meeting (Boston) I did
attend, and I would be surprised that the positive atmosphere I felt
there
could have gone so far downhill so fast--maybe the plenary talk and
Gross/Levitt just
brought the issues to the fore? In any case, as a scientist AND as
program
committee chairman for next year's LA meeting, I'm very concerned about
SLS
degenerating into a separate-but-unequal bipolar group, and am writing
to
ask for suggestions: what can we do that's new and different (or even
old
and the same, if you think it would work) to help overcome all this
alienation? Ideas (preferably as specific as possible!) for session
topics
and formats are welcome (the deadline for submissions has been extended
to
2/15; a revised Call for Papers should be issued shortly in Decodings).
Jay Labinger
jal@portia.caltech.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 09:15:39 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: "David H. Porush"
Subject: Re: SLS conference
In-Reply-To: jal@PORTIA.CALTECH.EDU "SLS conference" (Dec 6,
2:45pm)
Dear Jay Labinger,
In your appeal last week you asked for suggestions to the
program cmmttee about sessions to address the apparent or
alleged growing rift between scientists and critics of
the culture/text/rhetoric of science. I believe the rift,
or perception of t he rift, has roots in essential
epistemological practices. I also believe that certain
postmodern perspectives in science and critical theory,
provide a way to heal the rift...but it requires a much
better and explicit kind of discourse aimed at scientists
-- kind of a "re-orientation" -- so thhey have some
markers or handholds when they enter the funhouse of
what passes for cultural criticism today...and it requres
a much clerer and more technically accurate rendition of
pomo science and its consequences in chaos theory, cybernetics,
cognitive science, quantum physics, cosmology and all those
other science which many of us at the SLS habitually exploit
as convenient metaphors or images, but with seom cavalier
treatment of the technicalisms in them. (It's the "Hey,
I don't believe in facts," problem.)
How bout a session that addresses the essential epistemological
difference and another tht imagines a way to repair the rift?
I think there's already strong suggestion in cyborg epistemology,
in Prigoginen chaos, in some speculations about cyberspace and
what it will do to our conceptions of experience, fact, knowledge,
and the body that point a way to such synthesis. Also, mayben
in quantum physics. But it means the program committee has to
exercise a heckofa lot more discipline than we have in the
past: gotta eschew mystifications from the cult. crit. side
(i.e., choose people who know the science); and eschew a
purely aesthetic or historical approach from the scientific side.
D. Porush
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 10:30:10 -0800
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Charles Bazerman
Subject: Re: SLS conference
In-Reply-To: <9412121417.AA18669@humanitas.ucsb.edu.noname>
I missed the call for proposals for next year's meeting in LA. Could
someone re-post it along with the conference date and other details?
Thanks,
Chuck Bazerman
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 12:00:49 -0800
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: JAL@PORTIA.BITNET
Subject: Re: SLS conference
David:
Your ideas for sessions sound promising. Are you planning to pursue
them
by trying to organize one or both sessions, or do you have some ideas
of
people we might solicit? You might want to get in touch with Richard
Nash,
who just sent me a message in which he expressed some interest in
putting
together a session that sounds rather similar to your (first)
suggestion;
maybe you'd want to participate.
Jay
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 15:54:42 -0700
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: paul l tidwell
Subject: Re: SLS conference
In-Reply-To:
On Mon, 12 Dec 1994, Charles Bazerman wrote:
> I missed the call for proposals for next year's meeting in LA.
Could
> someone re-post it along with the conference date and other
details?
> Thanks,
> Chuck Bazerman
>
I hate to see someone asking alone for a repost, so I'll second the
motion, could information be posted to the network for those of us
needing
the information again?
Thank you,
Paul L. Tidwell
American Studies
U. of New Mexico
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 23:42:01 -0800
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: LIONEL GOLDBERG
Subject: Court Ordered Liquidation - Computer Memory - CPU's &
Hdsk Drives
Choice Trading Company, Court Appointed Liquidators, have
been assigned to liquidate the following Multi-Million Dollar
inventory of computer Memory Chips, CPU's and Hard Disk Drives.
All items are new and come with applicable manufactures warranty.
Prices quoted include all state and local taxes plus shipping and
handling.
Order Cost
Number Mfg. Description (EACH)
Memory
1524 Toshiba 30 Pin Simms 1x3 70ns 1 meg $ 25.00
1525 Toshiba 30 Pin Simms 1x9 70ns 1 meg 25.00
1526 Toshiba 30 Pin Simms 4x9 70ns 4 meg 100.00
1527 Toshiba 30 Pin Simms 1x3 60ns 1 meg 26.00
1528 Toshiba 30 Pin Simms 1x9 60ns 1 meg 26.00
1529 Toshiba 30 Pin Simms 4x9 60ns 4 meg 106.00
1624 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 512x36 70ns 2 meg 50.00
1625 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 1x36 70ns 4 meg 100.00
1626 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 2x36 70ns 8 meg 200.00
1627 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 4x36 70ns 16 meg 400.00
1628 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 8x36 70ns 32 meg 800.00
1624 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 512x36 60ns 2 meg 52.00
1625 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 1x36 60ns 4 meg 104.00
1626 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 2x36 60ns 8 meg 208.00
1627 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 4x36 60ns 16 meg 416.00
1628 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 8x36 60ns 32 meg 832.00
Memory for the Macintosh
1122 Toshiba 1 meg x 8 Simm Module 70ns 1 meg 31.00
1123 Toshiba 2 meg x 8 Simm Module 70ns 2 meg 62.00
1124 Toshiba 4 meg x 8 Simm Module 70ns 4 meg 109.00
CPU's
1276 Intel 80486 DX/33 115.00
1277 Intel 80486 DX/50 188.00
1278 Intel 80486 DX-2/66 156.00
1279 Intel 80486 DX-4/75 358.00
1280 Intel 80486 DX-4/100 498.00
1281 Intel Pentium 80501-60 366.00
1282 Intel Pentium 80501-66 453.00
1283 Intel Pentium 80502-90 558.00
Hard Disk Drives
Seagate Barracuda Drives
1351 Seagate ST11950N 8ms 3.5" 1.69 GB SCSI 658.00
1352 Seagate ST12550N 8ms 3.5" 2.1 GB SCSI 899.00
1353 Seagate ST15150N 8ms 3.5" 4.2 GB SCSI 1,526.00
1354 Seagate ST31200N 11ms 3.5" 1.05 GB SCSI 538.00
1355 Seagate ST11900N 9ms 3.5" 1.7 GB SCSI 628.00
1366 Seagate ST2400A 9ms 3.5" 2.1 GB SCSI 856.00
1367 Seagate ST15230N 9ms 3.5" 4.29 GB SCSI 1,454.00
1368 Seagate ST41080N 11ms 5.5" 9.08 GB SCSI 2,848.00
Western Digital
1366 Western AC2340 12ms 3.5" 340 MB IDE 122.00
1367 Western AC2420 12ms 3.5" 420 MB IDE 136.00
1368 Western AC2540 12ms 3.5" 540 MB IDE 160.00
1369 Western AC2700 12ms 3.5" 731 MB IDE 230.00
Conner
1372 Connor CFS420A 14ms 3.5" 420 MB IDE 138.00
1373 Connor CFA540A 10ms 3.5" 540 MB IDE 168.00
1374 Connor CFA1080A 10ms 3.5" 1080 MB IDE 408.00
ORDERING INFORMATION
To order please use a company order form/letterhead or if for
personal use, use a plain white sheet of paper with your return
address. List the items desired by order number, the quantity
and total cost. Send your order with check or money order
payable to Choice Trading Company to:
Choice Trading Company
Order Processing Lot #1776
86228 Terminal Annex
Los Angeles, Ca. 90086-0228
Orders are processed on a first come basis. Adjustments and
refunds will be made immediately for items that have sold out.
Please allow 2 to 3 Weeks for shipping. Due to court ordered
restrictions we are unable to accept COD, phone or credit card
orders.
This public offering is valid through December 30, 1994. Any
unsold inventories will be auctioned. For auction information
please send a self addressed stamped enveloped to:
Choice Trading Company
Lot #1776
202 So. Broadway
Los Angeles, Ca. 90012
(213) 856 6172
If you are unable to use this information, please pass it on to
someone who may.
Lionel M. Goldberg
Actuary
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 09:39:38 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: "David H. Porush"
Subject: Re: SLS conference
In-Reply-To: JAL%PORTIA.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU "Re: SLS
conference" (Dec
12, 12:00pm)
I'd be glad to participate in such a session. I think we would\
need to solicit the participation of scientists.
dporush
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 08:40:52 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: HUMAMATO@MINNA.ACC.IIT.EDU
Subject: List problems...
Once again I'd like to jog everybody re their subscriptions to litsci-l:
if
you're planning on going away for the holidays and your mailboxes may
fill up
beyond capacity, PLEASE send the following command
set litsci-l nomail
to listerv@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu
To restore mail from litsci-l, simply send a
set litsci-l mail
command to the same address...
I am having a *real* problem with mail being bounced from the following
address:
wsuther@helix.UCSD.EDU
Now if anybody recognizes "wsuther," please drop me a line
directly... Evidentlysomebody has had their mail forwarded to this
address, and this address is not
receiving mail (for whatever reason)... There's no quick and dirty way
for me
to trace this (though there is a somewhat labor-intensive way), hence
it's a
pain... PLEASE DON'T FORWARD YOUR LITSCI-L SUBSCRIPTION MAIL TO OTHER
ADDRESSES... It's simply better form to resubscribe (and signoff) from
the other address....
Thanks for your time, and I apologize for the interrupt...
Joe Amato
Listowner
humamato@minna.acc.iit.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 09:42:07 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: HUMAMATO@MINNA.ACC.IIT.EDU
Subject: Keyboard elves...
are messing with me! In my last post, the CORRECT address, sans typo,
to
set no/mail is
listserv@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu
Thanks for your patience...
Joe Amato
Listowner
humamato@minna.acc.iit.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 08:45:58 -0800
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: JAL@PORTIA.BITNET
Subject: Call for Papers--1995 SLS Meeting
Following is the (revised and expanded) Call for Papers for the 1995
SLS
meeting. It will also be printed in the forthcoming issue of
Decodings.
CALL FOR PAPERS
1995 Annual Meeting of the Society for Literature and Science
PLACE: Los Angeles
HOTELS: Radisson Bel-Air Summit and Brentwood Holiday Inn
DATES: Thursday, November 2 through Sunday, November 5, 1995
HOST: University of California, Los Angeles
SEND FOUR COPIES OF ABSTRACTS FOR INDIVIDUAL
PAPERS, AND OF PROPOSALS FOR SESSIONS OR PANELS,
TO:
Jay A. Labinger
Beckman Institute
139-74
California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, CA 91125
DUE DATE FOR ALL CONTRIBUTIONS: February 15, 1995
(Note: the original deadline of Feb. 1 has been changed. Include
Self-Addressed, Stamped Card)
Contributions must include: full name, address, phone number, fax
number and/or E-mail address (if available), and institutional
affiliation; full title, one-page abstract and keywords. Proposals for
entire sessions must provide the above for each participant and
paper, as well as the title or theme and coordinator of the session.
Formats for SLS Sessions:
Regular SLS Sessions: 10-12 minute oral presentations; 3-4
participants per session.
Special Panels: Focused discussion of a topic, theme or problem
among 4-6 panelists.
Seminar Sessions: Pre-circulated papers from 4 or more participants,
with designated moderator(s) responsible for circulating papers
to panelists and pre-subscribed audience in advance of
meeting, and for facilitating discussion among panelists and
audience.
Guest Scholar Sessions: sessions centering upon extended
presentation (up to 30 minutes) by a well-known author,
followed by 1-2 brief comments and open discussion.
Alternative Formats: sessions centering on non-traditional or
"performative" presentations (videos, poetry readings, art
displays, multi-media presentations, etc.)
Comment on Formats:
SLS is committed to promoting discussion across disciplinary
boundaries.
To that end, we have a tradition of presenting brief (10-12 minutes)
oral
summaries of papers rather than reading them in part or in whole
and
allowing time for group discussion. We encourage participants to bring
multiple copies of their papers to the conference to distribute to
interested
conferees. One important byproduct of this format is that discussion
gathers
momentum over the life of the conference, forging connections between
sessions, as well as between individual presentations. In our
experience,
achieving that goal is enhanced by sessions in which presentations are
thematically linked. Contributors are strongly encouraged to take
advantage
of any of the following options:
Organize a special panel, seminar or guest scholar session.
Propose an entire regular session, by lining up 2 or 3 people with
similar
interests or who will present papers related to yours. The SLS e-mail
list
LITSCI-L is a good way to find those people.
Help us put papers together by suggesting a title or theme for your
contribution's session and/or a couple of specific paper topics that
would fit
well with yours. (Some sample session titles and topics from past
conferences are listed on the reverse side.)
Special panels and seminar sessions consist primarily of discussion,
with
only very brief prepared opening remarks by the participants. Proposals
for
special panels require a one-page abstract describing the general theme
of
the session and a position statement for each panelist; for seminar
sessions,
there should be an abstract for each contributor's paper.
Proposals for sessions that cross disciplinary borders (e.g.,
scientists
and humanists discussing topics of common interest) are particularly
encouraged.
Feel free to contact any program committee member to discuss your
ideas:
Steven Carter Marcella Greening Jay Labinger
Dept. of English 42 1/2 Clubhouse Ave. Beckman Institute
Cal State Univ. Venice, CA 90291 Caltech
Bakersfield, CA 93311 310-399-4787 Pasadena, CA 91125
805-664-2153 greening@bcf.usc.edu 818-395-6520
jal@portia.caltech.edu
Call for Chairs!
We would like to hear from SLS members who are willing to step in and
chair
sessions. If interested, please contact members of the Program
Committee,
and let us know whether you have any preferences or restrictions.
The following are some representative titles of sessions at
recent conferences:
Metaphor and the Sciences Narratives of Medicine, Illness and
the Body Science Theory/Literary Theory Science, Literature,
and Ethics Rethinking Science Pedagogy Rhetorics of Scientific
Biography and Autobiography Subjectivity: Time, Narrative,
Complexity, and Consciousness Bridging the Gap Between the
Sciences and Humanities: The Role of Representation African-
Americans and the Institution of Science The Self-Organization of
Meaning Vision, Image, and Motion Rhetoric and Reality
Narratives of Exploration Literature and the Diffusion of Science
in Nineteenth-Century America Lines in the Sand: Mapping as
Science and Literature Entropy, Chaos and the Dynamics of
Meaning Technology and (Dis)Embodiment Gender, Freedom
and Control Images and Visual Representation Rhetoric of
Science and Scientists Literary Responses to Scientific Discourse
Virtual Reality, Cyberspace and Theory Interactive Media and
Structures of Knowledge Brain, Science and Literature Politics
and the Environment Romanticism and Science
SLS Membership
Note All participants in the 1995 Conference must be members of
the Society for Literature and Science for 1995-96 (membership year
runs from October 1, 1995 through the following September. You will
receive a membership form for 1995-96 with proposal acceptance
letters mailed to you during the spring of 1995. Membership will
include a subscription to volume 4 (1996) of Configurations.
If you wish to join or renew your membership in SLS for the current
1994-95 membership year now, please call The Johns Hopkins
University Press, Journals Publishing Division, 2715 N. Charles
Street, Baltimore, MD 21218-4319, at 1-800-548-1784.
Please complete the following form and submit with your
individual abstract. If submitting a proposal for an entire
session, you must include a completed form for each
participant as well as yourself.
Name_________________________________________________
Institutional Affiliation_____________________________________
Mailing Address_________________________________________
______________________________________________________
Phone_________________________________________________
Fax___________________________________________________
E-Mail_________________________________________________
Check one:
Faculty_______ Student_______ Independent Scholar________
Regular Paper______________ Session____________________
Title of Proposed Paper or Session__________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
Keywords for Paper or Session_____________________________
______________________________________________________
Please Include a Self-Addressed, Stamped Postcard to Confirm
Receipt of Your Contribution
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 19:28:28 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Thomas Weissert
Subject: scientist
Dave, Jay: I'm willing to be a scientist on your panel if you so
desire.
Tom
==========================================================================
Thomas Weissert, PhD Dynamics and Discourse
Physics Department
weissert@sjuphil.sju.edu
Saint Joseph's University (610) 660-1811
5600 City Ave (610) 664-8463
Philadelphia, PA 19131 fax (610) 660-1832
==========================================================================
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 09:46:20 G+3
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: "Mohamed A. Sodany"
Subject: Software inquiry
I have been looking for a concordance program that is compatible with
Macintosh.I need it urgently for my research in Liguistics.
The kind of program I need should be, more or less, similar to the IBM
Micro-OCPor MicroConcord (marketed by Oxford University Press).
I would appreciate it if anyone out there (not necessarily a linguist)
could advise me on the availabilty of any concordance program that
can process a linguistic corpus, and that can work on Macintosh LC
(system 7, with 4 Mb of Ram and 1.4 Mb 3.5 floppy disk drive.
Please e-mail ZCC3172@SAKAUU03.Bitnet
OR write to
Mohamed A. Sodany
English Language Center
King Abdul-Aziz University
P.O.Box 1540
Jeddah 21441
Saudi Arabia
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 09:18:15 -0600
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Joe Amato
Subject: Test, please ignore...
Sorry for the interrupt again, folks... I'm just debugging the list,
you can ignore this message.
Joe Amato
Listowner
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 11:39:56 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: "David H. Porush"
Subject: Re: scientist
In-Reply-To: Thomas Weissert "scientist" (Dec 13,
7:28pm)
Tom, that would be good. DO you think you could recruit another
physicist or scientist? We could make it a true roundtable. I
count you among the already converted (in some senses), we need
to hear from someone who would find our expostulations pretty
arcane...and be able to formulate reasons why they seem arcane.
dporush
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 11:08:52 -0800
Reply-To: Charles Bazerman
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Charles Bazerman
Subject: Rhetoric of sci-Tech at next year's meeting
In-Reply-To: <9412141649.AA20477@humanitas.ucsb.edu.noname>
Given Andrew Russ's comments the other week, I feel obliged to do
something. Are any of you rhetoricians on the list contemplating
papers
for the LA SLS this November? Could we coordinate one or more panels
over the wire? To keep the list from getting cluttered, respond to me
personally and then I'll create a group alias if needed so we can work
through ideas.
Chuck Bazerman
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 13:59:41 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Thomas Weissert
Subject: OUR scientist
In-Reply-To: <9412141835.AA16253@sjuphil.sju.edu> from
"David H. Porush" at
Dec 14, 94 11:39:56 am
;
; Tom, that would be good. DO you think you could recruit another
; physicist or scientist? We could make it a true roundtable. I
; count you among the already converted (in some senses), we need
; to hear from someone who would find our expostulations pretty
; arcane...and be able to formulate reasons why they seem arcane.
;
; dporush
;
Well David, this poses an interesting problem. You want a combination
of "you don't know how we think" and "why should I even
listen to
this?," someone who is not converted and yet cares enough about
what
"we" think to come to LA, really listen and participate. Hmmm.
I
invite anyone online who thinks they can take that stand, while I will
think about sooomeone that I know who might fit this bill, Dave. Of
course you realize that Artie Rodgers, who was on that panel with you
and Paul Harris in Portand (another Physicist) was the one who said on
the second day of his one and only SLS, "Tom, these people don't
understand how we think." He's in Santa Cruz now, maybe he'd like
to
come down to LA?
Tom
==========================================================================
Thomas Weissert, PhD Dynamics and Discourse
Physics Department
weissert@sjuphil.sju.edu
Saint Joseph's University (610) 660-1811
5600 City Ave (610) 664-8463
Philadelphia, PA 19131 fax (610) 660-1832
==========================================================================
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 12:12:28 -0800
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Stephen Ogden
Subject: Re: scientist
In-Reply-To: <199412141840.KAA09820@whistler.sfu.ca> from
"David H. Porush" at
Dec 14, 94 11:39:56 am
I'd be glad to give a scientistic (or perhaps technologistic) voice on
the side of thinking that social constructivist views of science are
narcissistic and unrigorous, but perhaps best to include someone who
is
not a devoted SLS-er.
Stephen Ogden
Computer Systems Division
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C. Canada V5A 3S6
(604)291-4706 (fax)-3032
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 15:12:03 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Jo Alyson Parker
Subject: Re: scientist
In-Reply-To: <9412141839.AA16440@sjuphil.sju.edu> from
"David H. Porush" at
Dec 14, 94 11:39:56 am
What about Artie? He came, he saw, he left in disgust.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 17:18:10 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Stephen J Weininger
Subject: Scis & lits at SLS
This is my maiden appearance on this list although not, God knows, in
discussions of SLS issues, including the hoary (but very vexatious)
question of how to get scientists and non-scientists to pursue some
kind
of common project in this org. I've been stimulated by the recent
messages from Andrew Russ, Tom Weissert, Chuck Bazerman, David Porush e
tutti quanti. So this is my collective response, which despite Chuck's
admonition I'll burden you all with.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 11:27:54 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: "David H. Porush"
Subject: Re: OUR scientist
In-Reply-To: Thomas Weissert "OUR scientist" (Dec
14, 1:59pm)
Dear Tom (and all others listening in)
Artie Rodgers would be perfect. Would you be willing to contact him?
And yes, your characterization of the sort of being I was looking
for was apt. We need a physicst with time on her/his hands.
dporush
P.S. And rather than taking it into a private domain, I would
suggest to Chuck bazerman that the SLS list is not cluttered
enough, and airing the discussion publically would do all
of us a lot of good, especially those of us curious as to
what the rhetoricians think.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 11:30:35 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: "David H. Porush"
Subject: Re: scientist
In-Reply-To: Stephen Ogden "Re: scientist" (Dec 14,
12:12pm)
Dear Stephen,
Thanks for the offer. Do you want to begin now, get this discussion
jump-strted? Why wait for LA? And of course, welcome aboard the
panel...maybe we should have nothing but roundtables next year...figure
out what the heck we're doing, do something clever, run some
parallel MUDs, use the INternet....
dporush
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 11:33:29 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: "David H. Porush"
Subject: Re: scientist
In-Reply-To: Jo Alyson Parker "Re: scientist" (Dec
14, 3:12pm)
Dear Jo Alyson Parker,
You wrote: "What about Artie? He came, he saw, he left in
disgust."
That's exactly the kind of scnario that has been rehearsed for
the last 8 years in SLS conferences, and we have never really
successfully addressed it t the epistemological level, which is
here the root of our disagreement is. It's the two synagogues
problem ("I never go to *that* one!") And the results are
that
(1) We continualy disgust mnost scientists...
(2) And we have developed an insufferably clubby feel...we're
old, as an organization, well before our time.
dporush
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 11:37:27 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: "David H. Porush"
Subject: Re: Please do this
--- Forwarded mail from dnk@watson.ibm.com
Received: from watson.ibm.com (watson.ibm.com [129.34.139.4]) by
mail1.its.rpi.edu (8.6.4/8.6.4) with SMTP id NAA21369 for
;
Thu, 22 Sep 1994 13:54:58 -0400
From: dnk@watson.ibm.com
Message-Id: <199409221754.NAA21369@mail1.its.rpi.edu>
Received: from YKTVMV by watson.ibm.com (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id
8161;
Thu, 22 Sep 94 13:55:01 EDT
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 94 13:49:46 EDT
To: porusd@rpi.edu
Subject: Re: Hello?
I will contact Bill. But I'd also be interested in hearing about the
Fulbright fellowship, the glorious side, and the challenging side.
I know there is a Fulbright scholar program, but not much more.
I've been keeping my head down working inside an industrial lab
for the last few years, so I don't know as much about these things
as I should e.g. Is it only for academics? How does it all work?
How stiff is the competition?
(I've got a conference/workshop paper or two or three a year over the
last
4 years, but I'm real thin on journal papers (never can make the
time)).
Is there a time that it would be convenient for you to have me call?
Days or evenings are ok for me (although the rest of this weekend is
out -- conference paper deadline tomorrow at 7pm :-) ).
*************** Referenced Note ***************
Received: from mail1.its.rpi.edu by watson.ibm.com (IBM VM SMTP V2R3)
with TCP;
Thu, 22 Sep 94 13:48:08 EDT
Received: from goya.its.rpi.edu (porusd@goya.its.rpi.edu
[128.113.100.15]) by
mail1.its.rpi.edu (8.6.4/8.6.4) with ESMTP id NAA19760
for ; Thu, 22 Sep 1994 13:47:55 -0400
Received: (porusd@localhost) by goya.its.rpi.edu (8.6.9/8.6.4) id
NAA08805 for
dnk@watson.ibm.com; Thu, 22 Sep 1994 13:47:53 -0400
From: porusd@rpi.edu (David H. Porush)
Message-Id: <9409221347.ZM8803@goya.its.rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 13:47:52 -0400
In-Reply-To: dnk@watson.ibm.com
"Hello?" (Sep 19, 10:56am)
References: <199409191501.LAA12205@mail1.its.rpi.edu>
X-Mailer: Z-Mail (2.1.5 20sep93)
To: dnk@watson.ibm.com
Subject: Re: Hello?
Doug, your message did get through. I DID spend a year in Israel,
at the Technion to be precise, with my family. It was glorious,
although
there were many challenges as well. But I was on a Fulbright, not a
Lady Davis Fellowship. Someone who might be of help is Prof.
Bill Perlman of RPI who can be reached at perlmw@rpi.edu [I think].
If you have broader interests in more than just how the Lady Davis
operates,
I'd be glad to talk with you.
DAvid Porush
--- End of forwarded mail from dnk@watson.ibm.com
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 19:19:39 -0500
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Stephen J Weininger
Subject: Scis & lits at SLS
Here is the full message you were supposed to receive a week ago, of
which only a lagnape was dispatched.
This is my maiden appearance on this list although not, God knows, in
discussions of SLS issues, including the hoary (but very vexatious)
question of how to get scientists and non-scientists to pursue some
kind
of common project in this org. I've been stimulated by the recent
messages from Andrew Russ, Tom Weissert, Chuck Bazerman, David Porush e
tutti quanti. So this is my collective response, which despite Chuck's
admonition I'll burden you all with.
I think that one of the salient points made at the recent SLS meeting
was that if our org is going to be anything more than a convenient
excuse for giving papers then it will have to encourage scientists and
non-scientists (hereafter scis and lits) to undertake joint projects.
This
doesn't mean that they have to agree but that they at least have to
establish the nature and boundaries of the issues under discussion. In
fact, a recitation of the process by which such a collaboration was
negotiated would itself constitute an enormously interesting and
valuable
session.
So we would, IMHO, be doing ourselves, SLS and possibly the world a
favor
if we would spend more time thinking about topics and issues that would
lend themselves to such collaboration, and less time preparing to do
our
own shticks. (I do have to recognize that guys like me with a job and
tenure
often have more freedom here than, say, your average grad student.) I
have been fortunate in being able to teach a seminar with an art
historian colleague on "Light, Vision and Understanding." One
of the
issues that comes up repeatedly are the similarities and differences
among the roles played by representation (in this case mainly visual)
in
the sciences and the arts. It's a topic that I think would allow for
some
interesting collaboration, and I'd like to hear from anyone who would
be
interested in participating and/or has names to suggest.
Picking good topics won't solve all our problems as I'm sure we also
realize by now. There is the prior problem of establishing mutual
interest,
trust and working relationships with people whose academic culture is
different, whose professional aims are other than our own, and who
respond to different demands and desires. How are we to get the folks
to
whom we'd like to be talking literally on the same network as
ourselves?
Has anyone tried this at their own institution? As Dwight MacDonald
noted, "Clarity begins at home." Shrinking budgets and Gross
and
Levitt-type hysterics won't make it any easier. My experience leads me
to
believe that curriculum may be one of the best, and one of the very
few,
grounds where one can get a cross-disciplinary discussion going that
isn't blatantly artificial and that, with luck and tact, could be
really
exploratory without setting off the kind of alarms that send people to
the trenches.Any reports from the field?
Finally, let me draw on your collective, networked brain. I've been
asked
to review a new book dealing with the depiction of scientists in lit
called "From Frankenstein to Strangelove," by Roslynn Haynes.
I'd
appreciate suggestions as to other works with which useful comparisons
might be made. I've been through Schatzberg, Waite and Johnson's biblio
but have found little that seems essential. All suggestions welcome.
Steve Weininger
stevejw@wpi.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 10:13:43 -0800
Reply-To: Jeffrey Sturges
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Jeffrey Sturges
Subject: SLS Session Proposal--"Reflective Science
Writing"
Fellow recipients:
I'm wondering if there are 2 or 3 of you out there who might be
interested in putting together a "regular session" for the SLS
1995 Annual
Meeting. I have in mind a session with a title something like
"Reflective
Science Writing." I'm working on a paper/dissertation chapter on
the
work of four authors: Loren Eiseley, Lewis Thomas, Stephen Jay Gould,
and Oliver Sacks. If there are any of you who are doing work on these
or
any other "reflective" science writers, I'd like to hear about
your
projects, and perhaps we can talk about the possibility of putting
together a session for the SLS conference.
I hope to hear from some of you.
-- Jeff
Jeffrey G. Sturges Department of English "I strive
to
771 Juniper Walk#F UC Santa Barbara be brief,
and
Goleta, CA 93117 Santa Barbara, CA 93106 I become
(805) 562-5816 (805) 893-3709
obscure." -- Horace
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 1994 22:11:09 +0100
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Name withheld on request
Organization: Replay and Company UnLimited.
____________________________________________________________________________
PLATO ~Republic: Book III [392c-402d] Q&A
Plato/Socrates~w/Hippias~/Ion~
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Just as in learning to read, I said, we were satisfied when we
knew the letters of the alphabet, few as they are, in all their
recurring combinations; not slighting them as unimportant whether
they occupy a space large or small, but everywhere eager to make
them out, because we knew we should not perfect in the art of
reading until we could do so:
True-
And as we recognize the reflection of letters in water, or in
a mirror, only when we know the letters themselves, the same art
and study giving us knowledge of both:
Exactly-
Even so, as I maintain, neither we nor the guardians, whom we
say that we have to educate, can ever become musical until we and
they know the essential forms of temperance, courage, liberality,
magnanimity, and their kindred, as well as the contrary forms, in
all their combinations, and can recognize them and their images
wherever they are found, not slighting them either in small things
or great, but believing them all to be within the sphere of one art
and study.
Most assuredly
And when nobility of soul is observed in harmonious union with
beauty of form, and both are cast from the same mould, that will be
the fairest of sights to him who has an eye to see it?
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
**D 2**D* *I*I** *2 K*OM*ED*E O* BO*H:
* WI**O** O*** MHE* ME K*OM *HE *E**E*2 *HEW2E**E2* *HE 2*WE ***
**D *2 ME *ECO**I5E *HE *E**EC*IO* O* *E**E*2 I* M**E** O* I*
AND AS WE RECOGNIZE THE REFLECTION OF LETTERS IN WATER, OR IN
A MIRROR, ONLY WHEN WE KNOW THE LETTERS THEMSELVES, THE SAME ART
AND STUDY GIVING US KNOWLEDGE OF BOTH:
**D 2**D* *I*I** *2 K*OM*ED*E O* BO*H:
* WI**O** O*** MHE* ME K*OM *HE *E**E*2 *HEW2E**E2* *HE 2*WE ***
**D *2 ME *ECO**I5E *HE *E**EC*IO* O* *E**E*2 I* M**E** O* I*
A=A B
= T=T U=U V=V W=W
B C = =
= M=M
C D L=J K L=J M=M N/Z=S=2=5 P/ Q R S/
= = = N = = = pq S=Z=5=2
D E=3 W W 5=2 bd/ = = =
= S=2=S
E F G/ H=H=H I=I=I O=O=O X=X=X
9 = = = = = = = = = = = = Y=Y Z/N
\6\ H=H=H I=1=I O=0=O X=X=X Z=S=2
g = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
H=H=H I=I=I O=O=O X=X=X 5=2=5
1=1=1 2=5=2 3=E 4 5=2=S 6/ 7/ 8=8=8 9/ 0=0=0
= = = = = = = = = = = 9 L=J = = = G = = =
1=I=1 5=2=S 3=E 2=5=Z G\ = 8=8=8 g\ 0=O=0
= = = = = = = = = g 7 = = = 6 = = =
1=1=1 2=5=Z S=Z=5 8=8=8 0=0=0
5ZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZNZ
2S*5*S*5 The Mathematics of Language/The Language of Mathematics
5*S*5*S*5*S
S252S252S252S252S252S252S252S252S252S252S252S252S252S252S252S252S252S252S252
___________________________________________________
) Philosophy and The Mirror of Nature ~(rorty) )
/--------------------------------------------------o
(______________________HIOX________________________(
)_____________________HIOX_________________________)
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 08:33:12 -1000
Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos.,
tech.,
cyber discussion"
From: Emily Zants
Subject: 1995 Conf. Chaos and Lit Session?
Is anyone else interested in being part of a Regular Session or Seminar
Session dealing with Chaos and Literature topics? A Chaos-oriented
scientist would be particularly welcome, as moderator if nothing else.
One paper (mine) would deal with Poincare and Proust. Others? Please
notify me directly.
Happy New Year!
! Prof. Emily Zants "... and the whole of Combray ...
sprang !
! Dept. of Eur. Lang. & Lit. into being, town and gardens alike,
from !
! Univ. of Hawaii my cup of tea."
Proust !
! Honolulu, HI 96822 Speak of the Butterfly
Effect!!!
! e-mail: zants@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu
!
