Okay. I'll be a nice guy from now on.
But your points about the trickiness of cross examing women
are very accurate. I don't know if you paid any attention
to the debates a year or two ago between Hillary Clinton
and ... I forget her opponents name in the NY Senate
race--but he did a very mild cross of Hillary --in a debate
no less --and the press cooked him.
Joe
--- richard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Funny and precise but perhaps somewhat on the
> unnecessarily harsh side.
> Susanna doesn't strike me as phil major but anyone who
> ventures into combat
> land should come prepared for counter-attack and
> dissection. I myself am
> ruthless in cross-examination and have no mercy on any
> "expert" witness who
> ventures into the arena with inadequate weaponry or
> skills and expects mercy
> by relying on status, regurgitation of (inaccurate) facts
> or hearsay. But
> even the best "experts" in almost any field are
> relatively easily
> dismantled, or at a minimum, made to appear inadequate
> thereby raising
> doubts as to the value of their testimony. In extreme
> cases, where the
> opinion of the expert is held in high regard, one simply
> calls a competing
> witness with an equally plausible alternative
> explanation. It is sexist but
> almost universal that women are cross-examined
> differently and treated more
> politely than men. Many books on cross-examination
> suggest differential
> techniques for dealing with the genders if only to
> maintain favour with
> juries. In a phil forum everyone should be fair game but
> still, maybe it's
> just me, there's this residual reluctance to cause
> potential shame to women.
> My feminist friends (and probably Susanna) consider this
> attitude insulting
> and degrading but they themselves treat women
> differently. I just reread
> this before sending and changed my mind. This after all
> is philosophy not a
> social club. Carry on. No prisoners.
> Regards, Richard
>
> Original Message -----
> From: "Joseph Billings" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 8:33 PM
> Subject: Re: being or not-being
>
>
> > --- Susanna Chandler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > If H's sexual tensions are of interest, then a
> straight
> > > forward comparison
> > > of Hannah Arendt and her lover/mentor H would provide
> a
> > > solid set of clues.
> > > Perhaps her *banality of evil* might even apply.
> >
> > I thought gender frustration and name calling were
> over.
> > >
> > > I apologize to the forum
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> >
> > Monteverdi's
> > > extraordinary efforts in
> > > effecting a conceptual / artistic system.
> >
> > What does this mean?
> >
> >
> > That he ended
> > > up with a Cartesian
> > > result
> >
> > What does this mean?
> >
> > is the problematic that an artist like Beethoven
> > > took up.
> >
> >
> > What was the problematic and how did Beethoven address
> it?
> > >
> > > Theodore Adorno's extensive work on Beethoven is
> > > extremely apropos. He was,
> > > of course, a scholar of H., and expressed his
> > > philosophical education and
> > > individual concepts in his understanding of B's
> artistic
> > > life cycle.
> >
> > Interesting conclusions, but where's the beef?
> >
> >
> > Whereas
> > > we might endlessly discuss H's sandwiching of the
> > > metaphysical origins and
> > > futures around being-in-time,
> >
> > You figure everyone understands Heidegger now and Being
> and
> > Time has now been exhausted?
> >
> >
> > the trajectory of a great
> > > artists is perhaps
> > > the best example of what this might mean or not mean.
> >
> > And what does this mean?
> > >
> > > I would urge anyone on this list to read Thomas
> Mann's
> > > chapter in Dr.
> > > Faustus
> >
> > Always a good idea to read.
> >
> > which is a direct fictionalization of Theodore
> > > Adorno's famous
> > > lecture/performance on Beethoven's last sonata. It
> took
> > > place in the Pacific
> > > Palisades [my bad re: Santa Monica]. Most of us are
> quite
> > > aware of Adorno's
> > > transformative ideas regarding dialectics. My
> favorite is
> > > Dialectics of
> > > Enlightenment,
> >
> > How about some details?
> >
> >
> > > Regardless, the metamorphosis from passion into
> > > convention/language/structure.
> >
> > What does this mean?
> >
> > Then moving into a
> > > manifest conjuring
> >
> > What does this mean?
> >
> > of a
> > > being/beings first walking then almost transgressing
> the
> > > phenomena of life
> >
> > What does this mean?
> >
> > > being pulled into death / stillness;
> >
> > What does this mean?
> >
> > movement into quiet,
> > > the tensions
> > > between.
> >
> > What does this mean.
> >
> > It's true. It is there.
> >
> > Can't tell.
> > >
> > > Heidegger was nearly on the mark in his belief that
> art
> > > could express the
> > > full being of the metaphysical
> >
> > What do you think Heidegger meant? How was he right?
> How
> > was he wrong?
> >
> > mingled with pure
> > > being-in-the-world.
> >
> > What do you think Heidegger meant by these expressions?
> > What do you mean when you use them?
> >
> > Where H
> > > went wrong was indeed, as Richard pointed out, that
> the
> > > causality between
> > > origins and ontology simply do not exist any longer
> >
> > What do you mean? Exactly what claim, located where,
> are
> > you disputing?
> >
> > And this
> > > proved dangerous to the extreme.
> >
> > Why? What proved dangerous?
> >
> > In Beethoven's Ode To
> > > Spring the heightened
> > > possibility of collective experience of
> transformation in
> > > being other could
> > > be achieved,
> >
> > What do you mean?
> >
> > in much in the same manner as N's Birth of
> > > Tragedy.
> >
> > What do you mean?
> >
> > By the time
> > > Beethoven had reached beyond maturity into wisdom of
> age
> > > in his last works
> > > he portrayed a lightness and heaviness of being, pure
> > > embodiment of being,
> >
> > What does this mean?
> >
> > > much as Nietzche came to do with thought.
> >
> > What can you mean?
> >
> > It is not
> > > beside the point that
> > > Beethoven was deaf, essentially expressing his ideas
> > > without measuring this
> > > against physical affirmation. Similar to ontology
> without
> > > naming. Beyond
> > > naming.
> >
> > Do you wish to express a view about Beethoven and
> ontology?
> > What in your view is "ontology without naming?"
> > >
> > > This is not trivial nor am I attempting to be wild
> eyed
> > > or inventive.
> > > Certainly I apologize if belaboring my ideas.
> >
> > No need to apologize, but there is a great need to
> belabor
> > the details.
> > >
> > > best, Susanna
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> > http://search.yahoo.com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
|