Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art"

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 08:36:48 -0800

William: I inferred that you respected at least some Harvard faculty and intended no implication regarding your view of the worth of Harvard faculty or graduates.
I quite agree: I know very little about art and aesthetics. Hopefully my participation on the list will change that somewhat. I have no credentials in anything relevant to this list (aesthetics). I offer an inquiring mind and some modest credentials in social science (and, at that, my education emphasized application of research findings and not research methods). I haven't even been on the campus of any of the universities which you mention. 


As an aside, I bet that there are people who are embarrassed by the 
performance of some Yale graduates though. (Well, alright, one Yale 
graduate.)

Geoff C

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William Conger" <[email protected]>

To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 1:51 AM
Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art"



What the heck are you talking about?  Am I anti-Harvard now?  This is like 
some Inquisition charge.  As a full professor (since 1981) in a tier 1 
private research university I had daily and collegial contact with dozens 
of Harvard people, past and present. And those from Princeton, Yale, 
Oxford, Stanford, you name it. I am a Univ. of Chicago alum, also one of 
the sanctified super-elite top research Universities.  All of these folks 
were/are a feisty bunch, not easily intimidated by C- logic and old timey 
ideas. I prospered in the environment.  But now I wonder why, since I am 
talked down to daily by you and Cheerskep who seem to know more than the 
rest of us but only need to say that nothing's happened to change your 
mind on art and aesthetics even though by your own admission you know 
little --I'll say very little -- about art and aesthetics and never need 
to show your cards or, heaven forbid, propose a new game.



So, to really have the right street cred with me, show your credentials. 
List your recent articles and books, grants, etc.  Help me get a view of 
your status and then we can play hardball. Being smart isn't enough. 
Being brilliant is and being brilliant requires smart risk and the chance 
of error, and the willingness to invent the next step.

WC




--- On Sat, 12/20/08, Geoff <[email protected]> wrote:


From: Geoff <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art"
To: [email protected]
Date: Saturday, December 20, 2008, 6:25 PM
William: Re Harvard profs: I wish all North America had the
respect for
Harvard grads and alumni I do. I understand there are those
who are already
skeptical of your president-elect. The leader of the party
in Canada which I
favour is a former Harvard prof. Meaning:?

I am quite prepared to learn more about the meaning of
aesthetics and will
try to get the book to which you refer.
Geoff C

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William Conger"

<[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art"


> Re if aesthetics has anything to do with valuing.  I
suggest Marc Hauser's
> book, Moral Minds, Yale, 2006. Hauser is aother
Harvard prof., probably a
> dope, too.
>
> WC
>
>
> --- On Sat, 12/20/08, Geoff
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> From: Geoff <[email protected]>
>> Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art"
>> To: [email protected]
>> Date: Saturday, December 20, 2008, 4:43 PM
>> Cheerskep and Luc: Whether I read Luc's note
too quickly
>> or not, I didn't
>> perceive it as so scornful, though I do appreciate
your
>> attending to his
>> attitude Cheerskep.
>>
>> I think that much of the problem may involve my
efforts to
>> cling to a
>> certain definition of science (and Cheerskep seems
to be
>> with me on this).
>> Others may be equating learning or studying with
science.
>> The scientific
>> method is only one narrow method of learning. I
fully
>> expect that Cheerskep
>> would join with me in approving the pursuit and
products of
>> learning. The
>> achievements of neuroscience are impressive and
most
>> valuable, as well as
>> not being frightening. If aesthetics has to do
primarily
>> with valuing then I
>> don't understand how neuroscience will have
>> contributions to make. If
>> aesthetics involves understanding sensing and
perceiving,
>> then, of course,
>> neursocience will have immensely valuable
contributions to
>> make and has
>> already made such contributions.
>> Geoff C

>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: <[email protected]>

>> To: <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 2:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art"
>>
>>
>> > In a message dated 12/20/08 12:46:55 PM,
>> [email protected] writes:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Luc to Geoff:
>> >> Where have you been in the last 20 years?
>> >>
>> > And where you have you been for the last
month? The
>> neurology that has
>> > been
>> > championed on the forum has been based on the
>> assumption that examining
>> > brain
>> > tissue material will yield useful and
enlightening
>> things about the
>> > creation
>> > and appreciation of "art". (And
about how
>> "consciousness" -- which some of
>> > us
>> > persist in considering a non-material entity
-- can
>> "arise from" that
>> > neural
>> > tissue.)
>> >
>> > Geoff and I have posted extensive messages
detailing
>> why we say we haven't
>> > seen evidence of neurology's having
achieved
>> anything like this. (E.g. my
>> > posting on Zeki.) Either you haven't read
those
>> postings, or you've read
>> > them with
>> > nothing like what I'd call
>> "understanding".

























					Reply via email to