Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2007 :: November ::
Presentism
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0788  Wednesday, 28 November 2007

[1] 	From:	Nicole Coonradt <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date:	Sunday, 25 Nov 2007 17:27:11 +0000
	Subj:	Re: SHK 18.0776 Presentism

[2] 	From:	William Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date:	Sunday, 25 Nov 2007 14:40:20 -0500
	Subj:	Re: SHK 18.0776 Presentism

[3] 	From:	Joseph Egert <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date:	Sunday, 25 Nov 2007 15:12:22 -0800 (PST)
	Subj:	Re: SHK 18.0776 Presentism

[4] 	From:	Donald Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date:	Monday, 26 Nov 2007 07:16:18 -0600
	Subj:	RE: SHK 18.0776 Presentism


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Nicole Coonradt <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:		Sunday, 25 Nov 2007 17:27:11 +0000
Subject: 18.0776 Presentism
Comment:	Re: SHK 18.0776 Presentism

I would be delighted to learn from T. Hawkes the details about 
self-destructive truth-seeking, which sounds hazardously exciting. (I'm 
picturing some kind of spontaneous combustion!)  Given the antithetical 
nature of R. A. Cantrell's post today, perhaps Hawkes' reply 
(unwittingly?) is caught up somehow in what Cantrell describes.

Best,
Nicole Coonradt

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		William Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:		Sunday, 25 Nov 2007 14:40:20 -0500
Subject: 18.0776 Presentism
Comment:	Re: SHK 18.0776 Presentism

Presentism's focus allows us to feel the harsher edge of history, writes 
Terry Hawkes. And since we live and know in the present, it cannot be 
otherwise. The idea that we can interpret the past from any other 
vantage point than the present, is simply wrong. Obviously, anyone who 
can transcend the present is in line for a Nobel prize in magic.

Bill

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Joseph Egert <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:		Sunday, 25 Nov 2007 15:12:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 18.0776 Presentism
Comment:	Re: SHK 18.0776 Presentism

Terence Hawkes writes:

 >"Think, Joe, think. To seek, 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
 >the truth, despite our limitations' is absurdly self-destructive. Our
 >'limitations' are exactly those which deprive us of the truth."

I'm afraid, Terry, my (your?) limitations deprive me of the truth of 
your assertion, which I find not just absurdly self-destructive, but 
defeatist and pernicious in RA Cantrell's sense as well. Don't pee on 
us, Terry, and call it rain. Keep on riffin' though.

   Viva Orwell!
   Joe Egert

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Donald Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:		Monday, 26 Nov 2007 07:16:18 -0600
Subject: 18.0776 Presentism
Comment:	RE: SHK 18.0776 Presentism

I seem to have two dogs in this fight.

On the one hand, I agree that "isms" are responsible for a good deal of 
bad criticism (or, perhaps, non-criticism) by claiming for themselves 
all wisdom. The prophets preach to their disciples who learn the mystic 
jargon and memorize the holy tenets. Ten years later new prophets come 
along with new jargon and new disciples.

On the other hand, I have an uneasy feeling that the ism in question may 
have a certain drift in the same direction.

I think that both sides are suggesting that you build understanding by 
establishing your own limitations (including cultural givens) and 
working toward insights that transcend the limitations. But this may be 
too syncretistic a view.

Cheers,
don

PS: Does that make it a three-dog fight?

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the 
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the 
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.