May
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1280 Friday, 10 May 2002 [1] From: L. Swilley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 9 May 2001 10:13:17 -0500 Subj: Re: SHK 13.1274 Desdemona [2] From: Todd Pettigrew <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 9 May 2002 16:26:07 -0300 Subj: Re: SHK 13.1274 Desdemona [3] From: Ruth Ross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 09 May 2002 18:30:02 -0400 Subj: RE: SHK 13.1274 Desdemona [4] From: Andrew W. White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 9 May 2002 14:29:44 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 13.1274 Desdemona [5] From: H. S. Toshack <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 10 May 2002 08:07:30 +0700 Subj: Desdemona [6] From: Laura Blankenship <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Friday, 10 May 2002 08:32:56 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 13.1274 Desdemona [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: L. Swilley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 9 May 2001 10:13:17 -0500 Subject: 13.1274 Desdemona Comment: Re: SHK 13.1274 Desdemona Stuart Manger writes, > Can I canvas opinions on how unwittingly and thus almost culpably naive > or irresponsible through innocence and a lack of streetwise savvy > Desdemona is for her own downfall? In several parts of the play, this lady has indicated her interest in being a "warrior" (is it not this adventurous quality in Othello that has particularly interested her?), and she has "warred" against her father to marry against his obvious wishes. Isn't her problem - somewhat like Juliet's - that she has taken the first step into the man's world but is fearful to continue the "adventure" by taking a firm hand - and a direct, honest attitude - towards her husband? (How would Katherine of "Taming" have handled this? ["Sorry, Buster; I seem to have lost the bloody thing. Get over it."]). Desdemona gets her back up to act independently of her father, but then abandons her self-assertion when dealing with Othello. As with other characters, it is inconsistency that does her in; she's got plenty of "streetwise savvy"; she just hasn't the courage to apply it. L. Swilley [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Todd Pettigrew <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 9 May 2002 16:26:07 -0300 Subject: 13.1274 Desdemona Comment: Re: SHK 13.1274 Desdemona My own feeling is that Desdemona is humanely childlike rather than "culpably naive or irresponsible." I think part of the tragedy is that Desdemona, through no fault of her own, finds herself in a situation where she is hopelessly overmatched -- against the brutal power of Othello and the devilish cunning of Iago. Her only hope is the canny Emilia, but even Emilia lets her down. Iago accurately describes his own plot to use Desdemona's goodness to make the net that ensnares them all. When I directed Othello in 1998, I deliberately cast an actress who was an adult, but had a kind of childlike innocence about her. Many were surprised since other bombshell types had auditioned, but I thought it worked well. t. [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ruth Ross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 09 May 2002 18:30:02 -0400 Subject: 13.1274 Desdemona Comment: RE: SHK 13.1274 Desdemona Stuart, My 11th grade English students just discussed Desdemona's responsibility for her own downfall and found her na
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1279 Friday, 10 May 2002 [1] From: John D. Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 9 May 2002 11:01:29 -0400 Subj: Church as Theatrical Space [2] From: Louis Scheeder <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 9 May 2002 12:08:30 -0400 (EDT) Subj: Re: SHK 13.1273 Re: Actor's Church [3] From: Anthony Haigh <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 9 May 2002 12:16:22 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 13.1273 Re: Actor's Church [4] From: Ruth Ross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 09 May 2002 18:30:02 -0400 Subj: RE: SHK 13.1273 Re: Actor's Church [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: John D. Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 9 May 2002 11:01:29 -0400 Subject: Church as Theatrical Space Regarding the theatrical use of churches, see John Wasson's essay, "The English Church as Theatrical Space" in *A New History of Early English Drama*, pp. 25-37. Wasson argues that churches were major playing spaces before the advent of permanent commercial theaters near London in the late sixteenth century. John Cox Hope College [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Louis Scheeder <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 9 May 2002 12:08:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: 13.1273 Re: Actor's Church Comment: Re: SHK 13.1273 Re: Actor's Church Here in New York there are several churches that are associated with actors and performance. There is a Roman Catholic Church in the theatre district that has served as a spiritual haven for actors for many years (St. Malachy's?) And, perhaps more to the point, The Church of the Transfiguration ("The Little Church Around the Corner") has "maintained an affectionate relationship with people of the theatre since 1870." This National Landmark has been the home of The Episcopal Actors' Guild of America since the inception of that organization in 1923. The Guild bands people of the theatre together with the Church and aids the sick, the needy and the indigent of the theatrical profession without regard to religious faith. It generally provides grants in excess of $100,000 a year to retired performers, career professionals, and performers with AIDS. Also, St. Mark's in The Bowery in the East Village is home to an array of performance events, including the Poetry Project and Danspace. It also houses Richard Foreman's Ontological/Hysterical Theatre. There are numerous others. All best, Louis [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anthony Haigh <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 9 May 2002 12:16:22 -0400 Subject: 13.1273 Re: Actor's Church Comment: Re: SHK 13.1273 Re: Actor's Church I recall reading - somewhere in the dim and distant past - that the original rector of St. Paul's Covent Garden was something of a Puritan and requested that Jones build something simple - akin to a barn. Jones is said to have responded "Sir, I will build you the grandest barn in London!" I have always assumed that it's designation as the Actors Church has more to do with its proximity to Drury Lane. Certainly many actors are buried and memorialised there, including my own teacher - Rose Bruford. Does anyone know the status of the church in Shoreditch where many of the Lord Chamberlain's men are buried? The last time I was there I was saddened by its poor state of repair. I was told that the graves of Burbage and the rest were sealed in the crypt for health reasons - there being many plague victims buried there. However, English Heritage was supposed to be taking an interest and hoped to restore the building and provide access to the crypt. Does anyone have any more up to date information? Cheers, Tony Haigh [4]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ruth Ross <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 09 May 2002 18:30:02 -0400 Subject: 13.1273 Re: Actor's Church Comment: RE: SHK 13.1273 Re: Actor's Church Did anyone think that the apostrophe in Actor's is misplaced? Given the fact that the church is located in Covent Garden, the site of several theaters, couldn't the appellation be the Actors' Church...a church frequented by members of the acting profession? I think there is a church near Broadway in NYC with that nickname. Ruth Ross _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook,This email 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1278 Thursday, 9 May 2002 [1] From: David Wallace <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 08 May 2002 17:13:10 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 13.1260 Re: Accents [2] From: David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 8 May 2002 22:46:22 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 13.1242 Re: Accents [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Wallace <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 08 May 2002 17:13:10 -0700 Subject: 13.1260 Re: Accents Comment: Re: SHK 13.1260 Re: Accents I read with interest Peter Groves' comments on metre. Professor Groves endorses David Evett's earlier comments. Both gentlemen have disagreed with my comments on metre but I am helpless to offer a rebuttal since neither have offered a definition of iambic pentameter. From their remarks I can draw two possible conclusions: 1) The metre of the line consists of whatever rhythmic pattern that results from emphasized (or stressed or accented) words or syllables. Which words to emphasize (or stress or accent) appears to depend on a bewildering number of linguistic and contextual considerations. OR 2) The "metre" they are talking about embraces the traditional description: iamb - a metrical unit (foot) of verse, having one unstressed syllable followed by a stressed syllable. If Professors Evett and Groves are arguing the first premise then they are endorsing a rather...er...eccentric definition of iambic pentameter. Such a premise might offer a sensible way to deliver a given line of verse, but it does not describe a rhythmic 'pattern'. Aurally, a rhythmic pattern must repeat itself and its variations must be predictable. In short, it must have rhythm. Otherwise it is only a pattern in the sense that spattering paint on a wall creates a pattern. If they are arguing the second premise this is what they get: shall I com-PARE thee TO a SUM-mers DAY? thou ART more LOVE-ly AND more TEMP-er-RATE. rough WINDS do SHAKE the DAR-ling BUDS of MAY, and SUM-mers LEASE hath ALL too SHORT a DATE. some-TIME too HOT the EYE of HEA-ven SHINES, and OF-ten IS his GOLD com-PLEX-ion DIMMED; and EVE-ry FAIR from FAIR some-TIMES de-CLINES, by CHANCE, or NAT-ures CHANG_ing COURSE un-TRIMMED; but THY e-TER-nal SUM-mer SHALL not FADE, nor LOSE pos-SESS-ion OF that FAIR thou OW"ST, nor SHALL death BRAG thou WAND'rest IN his SHADE, when IN e-TER-nal LINES to TIME thou GROW'ST. so LONG as MEN can BREATHE or EYES can SEE, so LONG lives THIS and THIS gives LIFE to THEE. I use this sonnet as an example because it has no extra-metrical syllables and no inverted stress. In general, it has a pronounced "iambic character" inasmuch as it is a bit "bouncy". But no actor would provide emphasis to every monosyllabic word in the "strong" metrical positions and many might provide emphasis to monosyllabic words in "weak" metrical positions (such as "MORE lovely and MORE temperate"). But you will note, in this example, EVERY SINGLE STRESSED SYLLABLE of the polysyllabic words falls where my earlier posts predicted they would. I reiterate - the metre in iambic pentameter is governed by the position of stress of polysyllabic words. This is the clear and concrete PATTERN evident here and virtually everywhere in the plays. If Professors Evett or Groves are proposing a different pattern, could they kindly explain it. My comments here and elsewhere stem from my studies with Professor Kristen Hanson (presently, I believe, at Berkeley) and from the theories advanced by Professor Paul Kiparsky. There are a two basic principles. Imagine that beneath each line of verse there are ten alternating metrical positions. Let us designate them: weak STRONG weak STRONG weak STRONG etc. FIRST PRINCIPLE: No stress of a polysyllabic word may fall in a weak metrical position EXCEPT after a significant syntactic break (typically a period, comma, or conjunction). Monosyllabic words may fall in either weak OR strong metrical positions (and, I might add, be emphasized or not according to the dramatic or rhetorical occasion). SECOND PRINCIPLE: The final unstressed syllable of a polysyllabic word MAY be considered extra-metrical if it falls before a significant syntactic break (typically a period, comma, conjunction or sometimes the onset of a verb phrase or a prepositional phrase). This is the so-called "feminine ending" which may occur at a medial position or at the terminus to the line. There are many other linguistic considerations when dealing with lines that appear to have too many syllables. Even in the example Peter Groves provided, in his last post, there is a problematic line: "Be it lawfull I love thee as thou lov'st those,". This contains eleven syllables (which Professor Groves fails to comment on). At a glance I can see that Shakespeare "hears" the words "be it" as occupying a single metrical position. If necessary, I will provide a half dozen examples where he does exactly the same thing. How do I know this? The stress in "LAW-full" is in the wrong metrical position. Slur "be it" together and problem solved. (In fact, Shakespeare more often renders it "be't" when he requires it to fit a single metrical position.) Slurs, diphthongs, schwa etc. all factor into the process of scanning the verse. The advantage of the theory I am advocating is that it offers empirical, concrete evidence of a metrical pattern. In Shakespeare, the rhythmic pattern of the line must contend with the syntactic character of the sentence. The rhythm is concrete (or absent in the absence of polysyllabic words). The syntax is fluid. That is why iambic pentameter sounds natural (not da DUM da DUM da DUM as the conventional theory would have it). But no one has to take my word for it. Apply the principles I've outlined. The majority of lines will adhere to the pattern quite nicely. Where they don't, examine the linguistic characteristics of individual words or, as in the case of "be it", groups of words. I am quite used to the response that Professors Evett and Groves have offered. No one seems to want to believe that it could be this simple and be overlooked for so long. Regards. David Wallace [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 8 May 2002 22:46:22 -0400 Subject: 13.1242 Re: Accents Comment: Re: SHK 13.1242 Re: Accents Peter Groves taxes me with failing to recognize that "The <Sonnets>, to take one example, are full of lines that are unmetrical unless contextually determined focus and contrastive accent are taken into account.' I did, in fact, anticipate this objection: ."SOME words (auxiliary verbs, pronouns, relational adverbs) are sometimes stressed, sometimes not. And special circumstances (like the ones that govern the first phrase in the previous sentence) can shift stress from, say, a noun to a modifier, according to principles that we also learn." I could, indeed, have noted that speakers and even writers of well-formed English sentences can, under certain circumstances, place stress on ANY monosyllabic part of speech: "I was coming FROM the supermarket, not going TO it"; "We need to distinguish between THE roast beef sandwich and A roast beef sandwich." But the fact remains that in most English utterances monolyllabic function words receive no stress. David Wallace, who concedes that he is "an enthusiast not a scholar," is "uncertain how Professor Evett is able to describe my (vocal) speech patterns by examining my (written) prose." I confess that I have not, in fact, listened to Mr. Wallace talk. But having heard some thousands of speakers of English representing many dialects and idiolects observe the phonological principles I outlined in my post, I felt very comfortable with an assumption that he would incorporate those principles in his own speech. If he can send me a tape recording of his ordinary discourse, made while he was talking to his colleagues at the water cooler or phoning his mom, that evinces frequent departure from the usual practices, I will be forced, of course, to qualify my views. His effort to make a distinction between *stress* (the phonological term) and *emphasis* deserves some attention. There is a big semantic overlap here, marked by the OED definitions that refer to phonology (sb. 7, 8), and it would probably be acceptable to suggest that *stress* has a more physical and *emphasis* a more generally rhetorical connotation. We can certainly concede that it is possible to produce emphasis by decreasing stress-dropping rather than raising the level of vocal energy on a syllable. But such a procedure only works rhetorically because on the basis of phonological rule the auditors expect physical stress and rhetorical emphasis to coincide. I will also concede Mr. Wallace's assertion that the pattern of stress in polysyllables is an important element in establishing meter in English metrical verse: the handout on scansion that I have my students for many years started out, "(1) Mark the stresses in all the polysyllabic words," because that was and is the easiest part of the analysis. But most English verse has strings of words, perhaps whole lines or even whole stanzas, in which there are not enough polysyllables to determine the meter all by themselves. The rules governing monosyllables are equally necessary, as Mr. Wallace's own example, the firxt stanza of *Amazing Grace*, shows-only one polysyllable in four lines: > Amazing Grace how sweet the sound > That saved a wretch like me > I once was lost but now I'm found > Was blind but now I see. But see how the example supports my argument. Most of the stressed monosyllables are nouns (grace, sound, wretch), active verbs (saved, lost, found) substantive modifiers (sweet, blind). The remaining stresses we might call rhetorical rather than metrical, in that they fall on words (pronouns and adverbs) that in ordinary discourse can be be need not receive stress. Here, I would suggest, *me* gains emphasis by its position in the foot (the previous 14 syllables have firmly established an iambic expectation) and from its position at the end of the line. The adverbs (now, once, now) are promoted to emphatic positions by their adversative relationship and the repetition of *now*. Contrary to Mr. Wallace's suggestion, this kind of "sing-song" pattern appears in hundreds of Shakespearean lines--enough to establish and sustain a generally iambic expectation--which, indeed, helps draw some phonologically neutral monosyllables toward stress. It is certainly true, as he says, that there are also many hundreds of lines in which RHYTHMIC variation from the METRICAL pattern appears-a fact we can state only because our familiarity with the rules of English phonology allows us to detect departures from the norm. Opening my Arden *Cymbeline* at random, I come upon Iachimo's speech at 1.7.169-78. According to the principles I have presented, none of the lines is as purely iambic as line one of *Amazing Grace*. But there is enough clearly iambic work to establish and sustain the expectation (certainly no other meter can be proposed). Here's a proposed stress/slack scansion, with the stresses in caps (merely metrical stresses-those not necessarily receiving actual stress when spoken-are in square brackets, and pronominal I in lower case); reasonable people might reasonably disagree about some of the details, but not, I think, the generality: He SITS | 'mongst MEN | like [A] | deSCEND | ed GOD; He [HATH] | a KIND | of HO | nour SETS | him OFF, MORE than | a MOR | tal SEEM | ing. BE | not ANgry, Most MIGHT | y PRIN | cess, [THAT] | i HAVE | adVENtur'd To TRY | your TA | king [OF] | a FALSE | rePORT, | which HATH HOnour'd | with CON | firMA | tion YOUR | GREAT JUDGment [IN] the | eLEC | tion [OF] | a SIR | so RARE, Which YOU | KNOW CAN | not ERR. | The LOVE | i BEAR him MADE me | to FAN | you THUS, | but the | GODS MADE you UnLIKE | ALL O | thers CHAFF | less. PRAY, | your PARDon. Thirty-three of the 50 metrical feet are phonological iambs according to the rules; only 14 of those are wholly or partly determined by polysyllabic stress, and it is worth nothing that 2 of the 10 lines consist entirely of monosyllables. The proposition that the meter is being determined by polysyllables alone seems therefore highly dubious. Another 5 would normally be pronounced without a stress, and hence neither confirm nor positively challenge the iambic pattern; substituting one such foot (sometimes called a pyrrhic) for one of the iambs (almost never the final one) is very common in the writing of iambic meter in English from Chaucer to the present day. The third, sixth, and ninth lines begin with trochees; this is also a very common substitution; so is the spondee, of which I find 2. The marked departures from the norm occur at the ends of lines-6 of the 10 have an extra syllable, and it is this, more than any other single feature of the versification, that draws *Cymbeline* (and other late plays) relatively far from the iambic base. But 6 out of 50 is still only 13 per cent; the remainder are plenty sufficient to produce iambic verse, which I do indeed define as "a pattern of alternating unstressed/stressed syllables"--not, normally, with a sing-song metronomic regularity, but with the kind of variation around an underlying predictability that I have illustrated here. A useful analogy is with the human hand or face--lots of more or less obvious variation in the particular features or digits, but no doubt about the underlying structure. Prosodically, David Evett _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook,This email 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1277 Thursday, 9 May 2002 [1] From: Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 8 May 2002 17:03:20 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 13.1269 Re: Issues Arising from Discussion of Possible Southampton [2] From: Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 9 May 2002 08:14:21 EDT Subj: Re: SHK 13.1269 Re: Issues Arising from Discussion of Possible Southampton P... [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 8 May 2002 17:03:20 -0400 Subject: 13.1269 Re: Issues Arising from Discussion of Possible Comment: Re: SHK 13.1269 Re: Issues Arising from Discussion of Possible Southampton > > Surely you don't mean to suggest that such fundamental human > > traits as shame are not intrinsic to the human psyche. You would, > > I think, be hard pressed to find a reputable mental health professional > > who would suggest that the inability to feel shame was not a serious > > abnormality. What shames us, and how we react and express that > > shame are the factors affected by cultural and environmental conditions. Isn't this exactly what Foucault following Nietzsche claims almost single-handedly distinguishes modern from premodern subjectivity? In Discipline and Punish for instance, Foucault follows Nietzsche in identifying public displays of torture as the mechanism by which people were taught to internalize behavioral controls which the modern European experiences as shame. > > For my part, I see no reason to assume that the level of > > homosexuality has ebbed and flowed as a result of social > > and cultural factors. > > The strange assumption would be that the level hasn't changed despite > social, cultural, and genetic factors, unless one can find a pressure to > promote stability. > > To create "stasis" they'd have to cancel not merely "to some extent", as > you assume, but quite precisely. It may be that at a certain level of > homosexuality in a population there is achieved a system which has > advantages over systems at other rates of homosexuality, and that these > advantages tend to give systems at this rate greater longevity than > others. Were it the case that a system near to such a level experiences > a pressure to go to the advantageous level, one would expect to find > systems at the advantageous level more often than would be the case if > systems had, as it were, to stumble upon the advantageous level and had > nothing to keep them there. Such a 'local pull' around the advantageous > level would indeed create a pressure towards stability. I should probably not introduce facts I'm not prepared to support with sources, but I did read somewhere that the rate of homosexuality shows a remarkable stability at ten percent of any given cultural group. Clifford [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marcus Dahl <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 9 May 2002 08:14:21 EDT Subject: 13.1269 Re: Issues Arising from Discussion of Possible Comment: Re: SHK 13.1269 Re: Issues Arising from Discussion of Possible Southampton P... Gabriel, Could you please explain the following passage a bit more...I always thought the idea of natural law generally evoked by scientific explanation was the movement towards least resistance ... i.e. it is easier for a cup to fall and smash than it is for it to reassemble itself once fallen. The smashed cup inhabits a lower energy state. It seems to me that your idea of 'local pulls' contradicts this by assuming that evolutionary process requires maximised states or areas of maximised utility for certain processes rather than simply areas of least resistance (to replication). Perhaps it is best to leave science to scientists and get back to Shakespeare? >To create "stasis" they'd have to cancel not merely "to some extent", as >you assume, but quite precisely. It may be that at a certain level of >homosexuality in a population there is achieved a system which has >advantages over systems at other rates of homosexuality, and that these >advantages tend to give systems at this rate greater longevity than >others. Were it the case that a system near to such a level experiences >a pressure to go to the advantageous level, one would expect to find >systems at the advantageous level more often than would be the case if >systems had, as it were, to stumble upon the advantageous level and had >nothing to keep them there. Such a 'local pull' around the advantageous >level would indeed create a pressure towards stability. All the best, Marcus _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook,This email 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1276 Thursday, 9 May 2002 [1] From: Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 8 May 2002 15:35:28 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 13.1262 Re: Truths [2] From: Annalisa Castaldo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 8 May 2002 16:33:49 -0400 Subj: RE: SHK 13.1262 Re: Truths [3] From: Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 08 May 2002 14:03:29 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 13.1262 Re: Truths [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clifford Stetner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 8 May 2002 15:35:28 -0400 Subject: 13.1262 Re: Truths Comment: Re: SHK 13.1262 Re: Truths > The > question whether mathematically expressible "fundamental" operations > (e=mc2, 2 = 2 = 4, etc.) are universal is, I believe, more difficult to > answer. > > David Evett Ironically enough relativity puts an end to relativism. The speed of light is constant no matter in what frame of reference you measure it. This is a universal constant and proves that there are absolutes independent of human subjectivity. Clifford [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Annalisa Castaldo <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 8 May 2002 16:33:49 -0400 Subject: 13.1262 Re: Truths Comment: RE: SHK 13.1262 Re: Truths David Evett: I was not the one who claimed that the sun went up and down; in fact, I was the one who pointed out that was an error based on our subjective, relativist view! R.A Cantrell: I hope my tone has not come across as strident (I was aiming for cheerful). While it is possible that we will never agree completely or absolutely on anything, I am sure that there are many things where there is enough overlap for good communication. I'm fascinated by the idea that my "investment in relativism" won't pay off (not even $7 and an old Macintosh). So far I've had a job, respect from peers, a small but hopefully growing publication list on my CV and a fairly happy life (all things considered). So professionally and emotionally, I find that my relativism has done the job. Of course, that's just my view of things, but then, that's the point, isn't it? Annalisa Castaldo [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 08 May 2002 14:03:29 -0700 Subject: 13.1262 Re: Truths Comment: Re: SHK 13.1262 Re: Truths Mr. Cantrell writes to I don't know whom: >Neither you nor I will ever agree on anything. I completely agree with Mr. Cantrell on that. So many absolute statements, so little time to refute them all. Ironically yours, Mike Jensen _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook,This email 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.