Thanks for the greeting, Huon. Hello to you too. I hope to contribute to the Joanna Overing discussion in due course... and once I've worked out how to navigate this somewhat confusing site. Alan Passes
Huon, I wrote Keith last night to say that I was taking a break from OAC. I was angry at what I see as the knee-jerk negativity of your responses to my posts in the "Missing the Exemplary" thread. Apparently the ways in which we perceive the world we inhabit and the scholarship that attempts to understand it are so different that there is no possibility of productive conversation based on generous reading. That's too bad. This morning I was tempted to shorten my break by Ken Routon's post on "facts." I hope that we can reach an agreement that I will stay out of threads in which you participate if you return the favor. We both have a lot to contribute to OAC but not, at least for a while, together.
Apologies for the request, which probably seemed rather peculiar. The thing is, I just wanted to ask you a question, and couldn't work out how to send it. Sorry about that. It was just a query about the OAC Press.
I just saw your comments on my Fadograph Finnegans Wake page.
I'm looking for a direct email address for you -
Kern and Old Man River show up among other places
in 363.10 Heat wives rasing. They jest keeps rosing. He jumps leaps rizing.
363.12 You known that tom?
But could certainly be one of the songs of the woods.
I think "bricolage" really fits with the spirit of Levi-Strauss, with "found poems", and with the craft of writing. The idea of "bricolage" didn't occur to me, so I'm happy with your contribution! I had used "mangled" unconsciously, and I presume it's due to corruption of my language by "pirate-speak". (On another front, I've been at a loss - for a while - whether Levi has an "accent aigue" or not).
If by ERD you mean "Entity Relationship Diagrams," no. These are social network diagrams. The important difference here is that ERD diagrams are constructed in advance as part of a database planning process. Their purpose is to eliminate many-to-many relationships and replace them with many-to-one and one-to-many relationships joined through link tables and thus solve a technical issue in database design. Social network diagrams can be drawn by hand but are now more normally software generated using network data. There is a good article on network visualizations at
Lin Freeman, the author, is one of the grand old men of network analysis and been there since the beginning.
Well, of course, Huon, it's never just one thing. Collective decisions tend to be "overdetermined," as the psychologists say. So the alleviation of guilt, or in some cases shame, is just one influence. (Britain of course has less to be ashamed of than most European countries. True, there was not much interest in the death camps, and no efforts to stop them, say by bombing the train connections. But indifference is not collaboration or enthusiasm.)
Material interests play a part. It is always easier to be compassionate to folks who have a lot of oil that you need, isn't it? And Middle Eastern countries are importers of industrial goods, and some agricultural goods as well. So it's nice to be friends with folks who will buy things from you. Tiny Israel is not much of an importer; worse, as a country with an advanced industrial sector, it is a competitor, in computer stuff, armaments, etc. No, it's clear you want to be on the side of those who have stuff you want, and who will buy your stuff, i.e. with the Arabs & Iranians and against the Jews.
Why is it antisemitic to criticize Israel? It is the double standard that makes it antisemitic. No amount of despotism, no amount of oppression, no amount of ethnic cleansing, no amount of attrocities, no amount of aggression ever brings serious criticism of the Arabs countries or other Muslim countries. They always get a free pass. If and when Israel--the only advanced, democratic country in the region--tries to defend itself, it is condemned from all sides. If this weren't so tragic, it would be hilarious.
You said, "for one individual to insist that many others may not use the word 'open' is a much greater harm than that two different groups of people should use the same word in their distinct ways or contrary ways. It is pleasant to be polite and to respect other people's metaphysics, however, politeness has a limit beyond which it becomes a personal flaw with serious consequences. If we accept the force of 'You may not use this word because I use it already' then we are agreeing to the rules of a dangerous game."
Huon, while we have had our disagreements on other issues, this is a point on which we can agree. And you put it well. It seems to me that Max is a bit of a bully, and a bit low on tolerance and inclusiveness.
I have to admitt that it was a little exaggeration, also it is too ambigous.
:) Maybe I should make it more specific with some additional explanation in the description part, so I am taking your's as an advice.. thanks.