[Humanist] 25.358 simultaneous but divergent

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Mon Oct 10 07:47:04 CEST 2011


                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 25, No. 358.
            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org

  [1]   From:    James Rovira <jamesrovira at gmail.com>                      (22)
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 25.357 simultaneous but divergent

  [2]   From:    Alex Gil <colibri.alex at gmail.com>                         (43)
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 25.357 simultaneous but divergent

  [3]   From:    robert delius royar <r.royar at moreheadstate.edu>           (16)
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 25.357 simultaneous but divergent

  [4]   From:    Jascha Kessler <urim1 at verizon.net>                        (41)
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 25.357 simultaneous but divergent


--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 00:13:51 -0400
        From: James Rovira <jamesrovira at gmail.com>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 25.357 simultaneous but divergent
        In-Reply-To: <20111009034039.5DBAD1D149B at woodward.joyent.us>


Wonderful response.  We do have those models: they're linguistic, but
linguistic approaches do not account for the bulk of published scholarship
in literature (at least in English language scholarship).  We're still
living with the legacy of over thirty years of literary theory.  Literary
study would have to move far closer to the empirical end of the human
sciences or toward linguistics for math-dependent approaches to literature
to take hold. We would need people working in literary studies who were
sociologists or anthropologists or linguists or even formalists rather than
literary critics using sociology and anthropology and linguistics and too
embarrassed to even sound formalist.  That change can happen, if desirable,
but at present the field is too politicized.

Jim R

If one wants the computer to produce a new type of humanities, one
> shouldn't look to computing, but mathematics, for that answer. That
> is, a new humanities would require a mathematical theory of the
> humanities which then the computer could implement. Expecting the
> computer to be the basis for a new humanities without the humanities
> having a computable theory is like waiting for construction tools to
> cause the creation of a new building architecture.




--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 11:25:33 -0400
        From: Alex Gil <colibri.alex at gmail.com>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 25.357 simultaneous but divergent
        In-Reply-To: <20111009034039.5DBAD1D149B at woodward.joyent.us>


That is only if you think that the only thing we can do with computers is
present them with data and have the computer make formally coherent models
out of it. Computers allow us to communicate with each other in different
volumes and formats. They also allow us to set up playing environments where
we interact with our subjects differently. I am involved right now in the
creation of such a tool with a team of folks at UVa's Scholars' Lab. Our use
of computers is also changing the way that we imagine graduate training. If
we change graduate studies, "the humanities" cannot stay the same, unless
you mean something that transcends the actual way we conduct business. If
that is the case then there is no ONE humanities. Honestly.

@elotroalex


--[3]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 12:50:27 -0400
        From: robert delius royar <r.royar at moreheadstate.edu>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 25.357 simultaneous but divergent
        In-Reply-To: <20111009034039.5DBAD1D149B at woodward.joyent.us>

Sun, 9 Oct 2011 (03:40 -0000 UTC) Humanist Discussion Group wrote:

> From: amsler at cs.utexas.edu
> Subject: Re: [Humanist] 25.353 simultaneous but divergent
>
> If one wants the computer to produce a new type of humanities, one
> shouldn't look to computing, but mathematics, for that answer. That
> is, a new humanities would require a mathematical theory of the
> humanities which then the computer could implement. Expecting the
> computer to be the basis for a new humanities without the humanities
> having a computable theory is like waiting for construction tools to
> cause the creation of a new building architecture.

Perhaps something like a shotcrete sprayer or AutoCAD?
Perhaps not.

-- 
Dr. Robert Delius Royar <r.royar at moreheadstate.edu>
Associate Professor of English, Morehead State University



--[4]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 11:54:51 -0700
        From: Jascha Kessler <urim1 at verizon.net>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 25.357 simultaneous but divergent
        In-Reply-To: <20111009034039.5DBAD1D149B at woodward.joyent.us>


Excuse me, but I seem to have missed something previously ... perhaps?  What
is meant by a "New" Humanities?
Jascha Kessler

-- 
Jascha Kessler
Professor of English & Modern Literature, UCLA
Telephone/Facsimile: 310.393.4648
www.jfkessler.com
www.xlibris.com





More information about the Humanist mailing list