[Tango-L] Who v. What

[TangoDC.com]

Re: Andy's argument:

I disagree wholeheartedly.

The premise that we have limited reading time is true. Researchers, 
students, and people who work in the communications industry know this 
all too well. But reserving our attention solely for those with 
credentials-- for "the authorities," or the well known, or the publicly 
visible-- is an idiotic attitude. I can't count the number of times I've 
seen supposed experts rehash something in a TV interview that was 
blatantly false. I've personally stopped op-ed pieces from going to the 
press (in a former job) because, despite their rhetorical heroics, they 
were plain wrong in the details. Experts, you see, have limited time 
too; and the more exalted they get, the more they rely on that evil of 
the modern world-- the summary.

Greenspan is notorious for _not_ doing this, and for speaking in precise 
technical terms on television. We might call him the paragon of detailed 
exposition, where public figures are concerned. People insist, however, 
on summarizing, excerpting, quotifying his statements, and reacting to 
the summary-- and blowing it out of proportion because he's Chairman of 
the Fed.  This is the same sheepish conduct that has been making most 
men look stupid as long as there have been men. It also annoys sane, 
sober market-watchers to no end, as such distortions of his message 
wreak havoc on actual stocks.

The Mass Media Age has only perpetuated this sloppy behavior, and makes 
it seem acceptable. Being pressed for time is nothing more than our 
era's most popular excuse. It is the status quo writ small. Meanwhile, 
there are plenty of intelligent people out there, with little or no 
audience, making valid, valuable points. You might know them by name, 
but it's What they say that keeps you coming back.

We must be selective, sure: we must choose when to skim, when to read 
closely, and when to do something else. This is called being responsibly 
subjective. But if you're going to read, read not through ad hominem 
glasses-- that is my point. Make the choices you must, then read the What.

As for multiple identities making ideas seem more "popular"-- hmph. I 
really don't pay that any mind. We're discussing ideas here, not 
determining which ones are right by the popularity of reader-response. 
Plenty of people who read this stuff don't post, and plenty of people 
who are pursuing this stuff don't even read the list. It's here in case 
someone finds it valuable, now or later. If you're not assembling a 
personal scrapbook of the clips most useful to yourself, that's your 
problem. And if you need an "authority" to make an argument before 
you'll think about it deeply, that's also your problem.

That aside...

If you've seen these arguments before a hundred times, I have to wonder 
why you're still reading the list. People have been saying that 
everything has already been said since the days of Plato. And people 
have said new things anyway.

As for me, I'm not just a theory-loving jargonhead. I'm simply not put 
off by theory, and willing to use theoretical terms to determine both 
what is commonly known about the tango and what is unknown, or 
unexplored. That is what my (now infamous) "Prologue to an Aesthetics" 
was about. Anyone with a semester's worth of experience in actual 
aesthetics (whether from the artistic or the philosophical angle) will 
recognize that I haven't written anything that complex.

And at any rate, anyone may opt to Not read the follow-up. I simply hope 
that those who do read will consider what I've typed, not which fingers 
I typed it with. There are people here arguing that the tango is an art, 
not just a recreational activity. Well, I think it's both, and I'm going 
to do my best to treat those rare moments when it becomes an art the 
same way that every art has been treated by its intelligent 
practitioners: I'm going to subject my imagination and intuition to the 
format of reasoned discourse, and I'm going to write about it. It's 
really nothing more than the organized musings of one dancer, who's 
unwilling to rely on such summaries as "The tango is about a man and a 
woman," no matter whose mouth they come from.

A normal human,

Jake Spatz
Washington, DC


astrid wrote:
> Joanne Prochaska wrote:
>   
>>  Andy,
>> Well Said!
>>     
>
> I agree
> Astrid
>
>   
>> your argument sounds great. Look at the ideas, not at the names! From a
>> theoretical point of view (I know you love theories) you are perfectly
>> right. But let us look at the limited possibilities a normal human has.
>> Do you read all newspapers in your country? Do look at all pages on the
>> web? It might be some very interesting and valuable thoughts out there!
>> I am sure you don't. You make a choice, you have your personal selection
>> which information you look at and which you ignore. You made this based
>> on your experience that some sources are good, others are biased by
>> ideologies, others are simply poor. The same is with authors. You don't
>> go to the library and read all books in the shelf from left to right. If
>> you already know an author and you found he is writing nonsense you will
>> not read all his books and hope one day he might express one genial
>> thought.
>>     
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tango-L mailing list
> Tango-L at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/tango-l
>
>
>