Richard Read's rant (Re: in defence of lists and Peirce) falls below the
threshold of communicability. If he wants to say something, then he has
to enter into some form of dialogue.
But let us consider his mistake in the opening lines. I mentioned that
each emailer has a responsibility to the 800 recipients of this list
when sending messages to one another. This 'responsibility' is a general
condition of communication - it is inherent in communication.
Interlocutors have a responsibility towards those with whom they
communicate.
Read falsely assumes I am speaking for others when I mentioned this
'responsibility'. But I am simply indicating a general condition of
language.
One dimension of responsibility is accuracy in understanding the content
of messages. Read has misunderstood my message as a way of justifying
his own, misconceived intervention.
He also sets up an 'absolute division' between elite and non-elite folk,
and places himself with the non-elite. But this is disingenuous at best.
Consider the language and self-congratulatory tone of his post; only an
over-educated elitist would even consider writing the email he wrote.
Warren Buckland
Associate Professor, Film Studies
Chapman University
School of Film and Television
One University Drive
Orange
CA 92866
USA.
phone: (714) 744 7018
fax: (714) 997 6700
Editor, "New Review of Film and Television Studies":
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/17400309.asp
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|