Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 15, No. 481.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
<http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/>
<http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>
[1] From: "McCullers, Jeff" <JeffM@lee.k12.fl.us> (97)
Subject: RE: 15.477 tools
[2] From: Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@emory.edu> (54)
Subject: Re: 15.477 tools
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:16:13 +0000
From: "McCullers, Jeff" <JeffM@lee.k12.fl.us>
Subject: RE: 15.477 tools
That accursed teleological snare, while always set out in plain sight, can
easily capture unwary interlopers, and I thank Willard for releasing me from
it so gently and so adroitly. I'll try to watch my step.
Having said that, having dusted myself off and looked around for a safer
path, I took the liberty of backtracking a bit and skimmed over a few of the
past Humanist postings. I found, to my great delight, that there remains a
lively and rich conversation about what humanities computing might be after
all, and that there are many among you who are willing to consider with some
generosity who it is who might be permitted license to actually "do"
humanities computing.
As has by now no doubt become embarrassingly apparent, I am not a humanities
computing scholar by appointment, nor by tenure, nor by any institutional
affiliation of note. I am a one-time high school teacher of humanities,
drama, and English literature, who now, midway through his journey, finds
himself the anointed grant officer for a public school district in Florida.
I am, however, a student in Boulding's "invisible college" of those who have
(or are working toward) a "vision of the nature of the transition through
which we are passing and who are determined to devote their lives to
contributing towards its successful fulfillment."
In this sense, since the humanities (defined as broadly as possible) are
most precious to me as a human and as an educator (um, again, broadly
defined), and since I have found the computer to be far, far more than "just
a tool" and rather more than a prosthesis, then the intersection of
humanities and computing must surely be of great interest to me, and, in
fact, this is so.
Willard notes the kinship of humanities computing to both experimental
sciences and to arts and crafts. Blood is held to be thicker than water, and
so this kinship likely transcends departments, disciplines, and funding
sources. Before I make some foolish newbie observation on this, however, I
will close this message and go read more in the Humanist archives. Perhaps
then I can make of myself a better traveling companion, and avoid the snares
in this dark and wonderful wood.
Kind regards,
Jeff
P.S. As an aside, I wonder if we might go ahead and formalize the founding
of Kenneth Boulding's "invisible college." We ought to have a motto, school
colors, a school song, and...we need a mascot!
While we're avoiding snares in the wood in this belabored extended metaphor,
my vote for a mascot for our "invisible college" would be the legendary
Will-O-The-Wisp, which I understand was a mysterious light that would lead
travelers from the well-trodden paths into treacherous marshes.
While "go Wispies" lacks much in euphony and potency, it is pleasingly
perverse. Please give it every consideration.
-----Original Message-----
From: Humanist Discussion Group
<w.mccarty@btinternet.com>) [mailto:willard@lists.village.virginia.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 5:29 AM
To: humanist@Princeton.EDU
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 15, No. 477.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
<http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/>
<http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:21:00 +0000
From: Willard McCarty <w.mccarty@btinternet.com>
Subject: tools
Jeff McCullers, in Humanist 15.474, speaks about the tactile experience of
using tools such as the keyboard and wood-chisels. I began to think my way
toward the problem embodied knowledge in computing when some years ago I had
to deal with a now somewhat quaint sounding sneer, that the computer was
"just a tool". My years spent as a teacher of calligraphy and occasionally
paid lettering artist had prepared me well to spot this sneer for the child
of ignorance that it is. My calligraphy teacher, Lloyd Reynolds, used a
number of figurative expressions in his stubborn attempts to get us to open
our minds to what was happening when we used our edged pens. What worked for
me was thinking that my nerve-endings were growing through the pen to its
edge, which is where the mind of the calligrapher has to be. The eye is of
some help for seeing where the writing is headed on the page, but it is no
good in instructing the hand what to do, as the eye only sees what's already
happened, and then of course it's too late. For the pen as for the
wood-chisel: the mind has to be at the cutting edge.
One metaphor to hand, as it were, is prosthesis, "That part of surgery which
consists in supplying deficiencies, as by artificial limbs or teeth, or by
other means... An artificial replacement for a part of the body" (OED). As
many here will know, this has become a very popular way of thinking about
the computer. It has the advantage of being a metaphor of embodiment -- the
prosthetic device is good in proportion to the intimacy of interconnection
with the human user. What bothers me about this metaphor, however, is the
notion that the prosthesis specifically
*replaces* what has been lost -- the arm, the leg. Now one can, of course,
argue somewhat in the manner of Plato in the Symposium, that we've lost an
original wholeness that the metaphorically prosthetic device is, as it were,
supplying an artificial replacement for. I wonder if the edenic story isn't
so deep in us culturally that any stronger, better body cannot escape being
an approximation of our prelapsarian one.
The problem with this line of thinking for us is that it is teleological,
anti-experimental. There's nothing essentially new in it. Humanities
computing, it seems to me, is kin to the experimental sciences in that we
discover or make new knowledge (though perhaps never new wisdom). It is kin
to the arts & crafts in that we do this through fine skill with tools.
Comments?
Yours,
WM
Dr Willard McCarty, Senior Lecturer,
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London, Strand,
London WC2R 2LS, U.K.,
+44 (0)20 7848-2784, ilex.cc.kcl.ac.uk/wlm/,
willard.mccarty@kcl.ac.uk, w.mccarty@btinternet.com
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:16:48 +0000
From: Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@emory.edu>
Subject: Re: 15.477 tools
Willard,
Is it possible to make an argument for humanities computing without ad
hominem comments about our peers (in the sense of other academics, not
necessarily computing humanists)?
Humanist Discussion Group (by way of Willard McCarty ) wrote:
<snip>
> I began to think my way
>toward the problem embodied knowledge in computing when some years ago I
>had to deal with a now somewhat quaint sounding sneer, that the computer
>was "just a tool". My years spent as a teacher of calligraphy and
>occasionally paid lettering artist had prepared me well to spot this sneer
>for the child of ignorance that it is.
Fine. I happen to agree with you but does this advance the cause of
humanities computing? Sniping at people who think a computer is "just a
tool" does not seem to me to be an effective means of changing those opinions.
In some cases, a computer is just a tool. Preparing concordances is one
example where I would consider a computer "just a tool." In other cases,
such as SOMs (self-organizing maps) which can lead to "discovery" of
patterns otherwise lost in the noise of data, along with the theoretical
work to properly apply it is not. Or consider the ongoing research I am
doing with Matthew Brook O'Donnell on concurrent markup. We use the
computer as "just a tool" for parts of the processing but the underlying
theory, querying and display are topics that require more than simple tool use.
<snip>
>One metaphor to hand, as it were, is prosthesis, "That part of surgery
>which consists in supplying deficiencies, as by artificial limbs or teeth,
>or by other means... An artificial replacement for a part of the body"
>(OED). As many here will know, this has become a very popular way of
>thinking about the computer. It has the advantage of being a metaphor of
>embodiment -- the prosthetic device is good in proportion to the intimacy
>of interconnection with the human user. What bothers me about this
>metaphor, however, is the notion that the prosthesis specifically
>*replaces* what has been lost -- the arm, the leg. Now one can, of course,
>argue somewhat in the manner of Plato in the Symposium, that we've lost an
>original wholeness that the metaphorically prosthetic device is, as it
>were, supplying an artificial replacement for. I wonder if the edenic story
>isn't so deep in us culturally that any stronger, better body cannot escape
>being an approximation of our prelapsarian one.
Why do I need a metaphor to describe humanities computing? Why isn't our
work like that of Cain in Genesis 4:7 "If you do well, will you not be
accepted? " If we do good work as computing humanists, will we not be
recognized? And if we don't do good work, doesn't the converse also hold?
Despite how we view ourselves or what snide remarks we may make about others?
If humanities computing has something important to offer (and I think it
does) to the humanities in general, that proof should be in our results,
not in endless self-analysis of computing humanists versus the unwashed and
ignorant world. Comforting rhetoric, but ultimately an unproductive enterprise.
<snip>
PS: I won't be online again until tomorrow (traveling) but I look forward
to reading any responses.
Patrick
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
<mailto:pdurusau@emory.edu>pdurusau@emory.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jan 30 2002 - 04:32:49 EST