Ken Friedman
18 years ago
Cameron.
David and I specifically prefer not to engage in that debate. We are
discussing a problem, not persons.
Since we are discussing an issue without naming specific authors or
texts, this is hardly a case of "silent censoring." No one has been
censored here. The accusation of "silent censor[ship]" is a case of
shrill theatrics. So is your suggestion that raising an abstract
problem is unethical or uncivil.
Most of us accept the fact that some concepts are by nature
difficult. To introduce a difficult concept in The Wealth of Nations,
Adam Smith (1976 [1776]: 33) wrote "I shall endeavor to explain as
fully and distinctly as I can, those subjects . . . for which I must
very earnestly entreat both the patience and attention of the reader:
his patience in order to examine a detail which may perhaps in some
places appear unnecessarily tedious; and his attention in order to
understand what may, perhaps, after the fullest explication which I
am capable of giving of it, appear still in some degree obscure. I am
always willing to run some hazard of being tedious in order to be
sure that I am perspicuous; and after taking the utmost pains that I
can to be perspicuous, some obscurity may still appear to remain upon
a subject in its own nature extremely abstracted."
Obviously, Smith wrote clearly enough to remain interesting and
readable two centuries later.
As for offering specific examples of unclear writing where the
content does not justify the effort, "Friedman" does not plan to get
into this with you. The issue is clear. The list hardly needs a
thread "so that a conversation can begin about their judgements."
My situated judgement in this case is that such a conversation would
serve no serious purpose. To the degree that one wishes serious
conversation, any set of names would require specific examples of
written text, robust analysis, close reading, and careful, extended
arguments. That sounds more like a seminar topic than a list thread.
Ken
--
Reference
Smith, Adam. 1976 [1776] An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the
Wealth of Nations. Edited and with an introduction, notes, marginal
summary and index by Edwin Cannan. With a new preface by George J.
Stigler. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
--
Cameron Tonkinwise wrote:
"Since phronesis is precisely about situated judgements, balanced
mediations made on a case-by-case basis, it might be useful if Sless
and Friedman name names, so that a conversation can begin about
their judgements, as to whether such and such a text is or is not
insightful or useful because of, or despite, its difficult writing.
This would seem more ethical and civil than the silent censoring of
texts that were not deemed comprehensible within a fixed but
unspecified time frame."
--
Prof. Ken Friedman
Institute for Communication, Culture, and Language
Norwegian School of Management
Oslo
Center for Design Research
Denmark's Design School
Copenhagen
+47 46.41.06.76 Tlf NSM
+47 33.40.10.95 Tlf Privat
email: ***@bi.no
David and I specifically prefer not to engage in that debate. We are
discussing a problem, not persons.
Since we are discussing an issue without naming specific authors or
texts, this is hardly a case of "silent censoring." No one has been
censored here. The accusation of "silent censor[ship]" is a case of
shrill theatrics. So is your suggestion that raising an abstract
problem is unethical or uncivil.
Most of us accept the fact that some concepts are by nature
difficult. To introduce a difficult concept in The Wealth of Nations,
Adam Smith (1976 [1776]: 33) wrote "I shall endeavor to explain as
fully and distinctly as I can, those subjects . . . for which I must
very earnestly entreat both the patience and attention of the reader:
his patience in order to examine a detail which may perhaps in some
places appear unnecessarily tedious; and his attention in order to
understand what may, perhaps, after the fullest explication which I
am capable of giving of it, appear still in some degree obscure. I am
always willing to run some hazard of being tedious in order to be
sure that I am perspicuous; and after taking the utmost pains that I
can to be perspicuous, some obscurity may still appear to remain upon
a subject in its own nature extremely abstracted."
Obviously, Smith wrote clearly enough to remain interesting and
readable two centuries later.
As for offering specific examples of unclear writing where the
content does not justify the effort, "Friedman" does not plan to get
into this with you. The issue is clear. The list hardly needs a
thread "so that a conversation can begin about their judgements."
My situated judgement in this case is that such a conversation would
serve no serious purpose. To the degree that one wishes serious
conversation, any set of names would require specific examples of
written text, robust analysis, close reading, and careful, extended
arguments. That sounds more like a seminar topic than a list thread.
Ken
--
Reference
Smith, Adam. 1976 [1776] An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the
Wealth of Nations. Edited and with an introduction, notes, marginal
summary and index by Edwin Cannan. With a new preface by George J.
Stigler. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
--
Cameron Tonkinwise wrote:
"Since phronesis is precisely about situated judgements, balanced
mediations made on a case-by-case basis, it might be useful if Sless
and Friedman name names, so that a conversation can begin about
their judgements, as to whether such and such a text is or is not
insightful or useful because of, or despite, its difficult writing.
This would seem more ethical and civil than the silent censoring of
texts that were not deemed comprehensible within a fixed but
unspecified time frame."
--
Prof. Ken Friedman
Institute for Communication, Culture, and Language
Norwegian School of Management
Oslo
Center for Design Research
Denmark's Design School
Copenhagen
+47 46.41.06.76 Tlf NSM
+47 33.40.10.95 Tlf Privat
email: ***@bi.no