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". > >> > > >> > But what really has moved me to write this > posting is > >> your tone toward > >> > Geoff. > >> > It is a combination of sarcasm and > condescension that > >> is particularly > >> > odious > >> > when it comes from one who clearly lacks > worthy mental > >> acuity and yet who > >> > smugly believes he has it.. > >> > > >> > > >> > ************** > >> > One site keeps you connected to all > >> > your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. > Try it > >> now. > >> > > >> > (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
