The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1670  Monday, 2 July 2001

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 29 Jun 2001 09:11:11 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1655 Re: Why Shakespeare Conflicts

[2]     From:   Sam Small <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 29 Jun 2001 22:02:04 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1655 Re: Why Shakespeare Conflicts

[3]     From:   Jack Heller <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 30 Jun 2001 14:33:08 +0000 (GMT)
        Subj:   Shakespeare Argues

[4]     From:   Takashi Kozuka <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 30 Jun 2001 15:15:05
        Subj:   Re: Why Shakespeare Conflicts

[5]     From:   Pervez Rizvi <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 2 Jul 2001 10:40:23 +0100
        Subj:   Re: Why Shakespeare Conflicts


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 29 Jun 2001 09:11:11 -0700
Subject: 12.1655 Re: Why Shakespeare Conflicts
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1655 Re: Why Shakespeare Conflicts

My apologies to Don (and Sam) for mixing them up.

Melissa has pointed to how math, science and philosophy can also be
understood as culturally constructed.  For some reason, though, we don't
treat them as dismissively as (say) aesthetics, however, nor do we worry
about getting global cultural unanimity behind the value of pi.  Rather,
we'd say that anyone who tries to give pi a different value is simply
not doing geometry.

Which leads me to wonder why Don (and Sam, first) insist on
Shakespeare's relevance in all latitudes of the world.  Why are we
trying to prove universality empirically?  This seems to open the
arguments to their own disproof, in a way that isn't necessary.
Couldn't we work out an aesthetics based on phenomenology, for instance,
or on psychology?

Cheers,
Se