Home About Subscribe Search Member Area

Humanist Discussion Group


< Back to Volume 32

Humanist Archives: Nov. 11, 2018, 2:28 p.m. Humanist 32.177 - releasing the hares

                  Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 32, No. 177.
            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
                   Hosted by King's Digital Lab
                       www.dhhumanist.org
                Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org


    [1]    From: Willard McCarty 
           Subject: conditionalities (19)

    [2]    From: Peter Batke 
           Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.176: releasing the hares (38)

    [3]    From: Jeffrey Savoye 
           Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.176: releasing the hares (17)

    [4]    From: Susan Ford 
           Subject: RE: [Humanist] 32.176: releasing the hares (6)


--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: 2018-11-10 08:28:54+00:00
        From: Willard McCarty 
        Subject: conditionalities

Responses to my question about releasing hares, esp Michael 
Sperberg-McQueen's, lead me to further questions on the wisdom of doing 
so in relation to the field, subfield, and/or practices involved.

Consider, for example, literary studies, mathematics, the creative arts, 
engineering and digital humanities. Would it be the case that the more 
mature (or conservative?) the area of questioning, the more directed to 
successful application, proof or result and the more vulnerable to fraud 
the less releasing hares willy-nilly would be regarded as wise?

Yours,
WM
-- 
Willard McCarty (www.mccarty.org.uk/), Professor emeritus, Department of
Digital Humanities, King's College London; Adjunct Professor, Western
Sydney University; Editor, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews
(www.tandfonline.com/loi/yisr20) and Humanist (www.dhhumanist.org)



--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: 2018-11-10 11:52:51+00:00
        From: Peter Batke 
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.176: releasing the hares

-Now that some of us are all getting old it may be time to revisit our
younger days when mark up was something teacher did to poor essays.

Certainly the rabbits of SGML have been let loose and multiplied - they
have covered the earth and no one has bothered to catch just one. I would
like to comment on one of the final paragraphs of Michael Sp-McQu's meander
through some the rabbit tracks. There he takes a swipe at Jerome McGann who
has accumulated a superb collection of rabbit pelts, I  will only mention
"Radiant Textuality" (five Michelin Stars) and whose great failing in the
eyes of Sp-McQu is not falling in with the Legions of Markup.

The failing of mark-up which were vaguely obvious even in early days at ACH
(or was it still ICCH) in Toronto was that texts were to be painted on the
screen via layers of embedded codes. (No need to respond - heard it all).
The project was computer calligraphy - it swept all before it - and it will
not rest till every textual mark affixed on any surface in the course of
extant textual representation. Mark-up was chosen because data structures
were felt to be too hard for humanists, give them CS-lite.

Meanwhile it has dawned on me that the interaction between mind and marks
(text) builds complex mental structures, which certainly can be aided
algorithmically, but it is about the metal (inter-ocular or wherever)
structures which have to be experienced personally - by a living entity.
Prof. McCann has known this all along.

My form of markup forces me to look at every sentence of a text - so my
wandering attention and my diminishing eyes do not trips to the dump before
delivering materials for building the mental structures. At present I have
Franz Rosenzweig's Der Stern der Erlösung hopping around in front of me,
mocking me - just wait, there is a place above my mantle next to Spinoza.

Peter Batke
http://www.humancomp.org/batke/
https://www.facebook.com/peter.batke.9





--[3]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: 2018-11-10 13:40:49+00:00
        From: Jeffrey Savoye 
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.176: releasing the hares

I would suggest that releasing some hares in an article or lecture is 
fine as long as that is not all the presenter accomplishes. (There may, 
for example, be a main question well answered, and some related threads 
left dangling.) In rare instances, it may be appropriate to release a 
hare with the plans for a trap to catch the hare, requiring some 
specialized information not yet available. In working on my own 
projects, I often have many hares running around while I am busy 
catching others. The question may be whether or not it is purposeful or 
desirable to make public projects that are not yet at or near a state of 
completion. (In general, I am of the opinion that something reasonably 
substantive is better than nothing, perpetually waiting for perfection.)

Jeffrey A. Savoye
The Edgar Allan Poe Society of Baltimore
https://www.eapoe.org



--[4]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: 2018-11-10 09:02:42+00:00
        From: Susan Ford 
        Subject: RE: [Humanist] 32.176: releasing the hares

When you start a hare you don't know whether it's catchable - but others on the list might.
That is the point of the list (and the hare).

Susan




_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted
List posts to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
List info and archives at at: http://dhhumanist.org
Listmember interface at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted/
Subscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/membership_form.php


Editor: Willard McCarty (King's College London, U.K.; Western Sydney University, Australia)
Software designer: Malgosia Askanas (Mind-Crafts)

This site is maintained under a service level agreement by King's Digital Lab.