Welcome to The Valve
Login
Register


Valve Links

The Front Page
Statement of Purpose

John Holbo - Editor
Scott Eric Kaufman - Editor
Aaron Bady
Adam Roberts
Amardeep Singh
Andrew Seal
Bill Benzon
Daniel Green
Jonathan Goodwin
Joseph Kugelmass
Lawrence LaRiviere White
Marc Bousquet
Matt Greenfield
Miriam Burstein
Ray Davis
Rohan Maitzen
Sean McCann
Guest Authors

Laura Carroll
Mark Bauerlein
Miriam Jones

Past Valve Book Events

cover of the book Theory's Empire

Event Archive

cover of the book The Literary Wittgenstein

Event Archive

cover of the book Graphs, Maps, Trees

Event Archive

cover of the book How Novels Think

Event Archive

cover of the book The Trouble With Diversity

Event Archive

cover of the book What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts?

Event Archive

cover of the book The Novel of Purpose

Event Archive

The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Happy Trails to You

What’s an Encyclopedia These Days?

Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Intimate Enemies: What’s Opera, Doc?

Alphonso Lingis talks of various things, cameras and photos among them

Feynmann, John von Neumann, and Mental Models

Support Michael Sporn’s Film about Edgar Allen Poe

Philosophy, Ontics or Toothpaste for the Mind

Nazi Rules for Regulating Funk ‘n Freedom

The Early History of Modern Computing: A Brief Chronology

Computing Encounters Being, an Addendum

On the Origin of Objects (towards a philosophy of computation)

Symposium on Graeber’s Debt

The Nightmare of Digital Film Preservation

Richard Petti on Occupy Wall Street: America HAS a Ruling Class

Bill Benzon on Whatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhat?

Nick J. on The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Bill Benzon on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Norma on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Bill Benzon on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

john balwit on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on That Shakespeare Thing

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

JoseAngel on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Bill Benzon on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Advanced Search

Articles
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

Comments
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

XHTML | CSS

Powered by Expression Engine
Logo by John Holbo

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

 


Blogroll

2blowhards
About Last Night
Academic Splat
Acephalous
Amardeep Singh
Beatrice
Bemsha Swing
Bitch. Ph.D.
Blogenspiel
Blogging the Renaissance
Bookslut
Booksquare
Butterflies & Wheels
Cahiers de Corey
Category D
Charlotte Street
Cheeky Prof
Chekhov’s Mistress
Chrononautic Log
Cliopatria
Cogito, ergo Zoom
Collected Miscellany
Completely Futile
Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind
Conversational Reading
Critical Mass
Crooked Timber
Culture Cat
Culture Industry
CultureSpace
Early Modern Notes
Easily Distracted
fait accompi
Fernham
Ferule & Fescue
Ftrain
GalleyCat
Ghost in the Wire
Giornale Nuovo
God of the Machine
Golden Rule Jones
Grumpy Old Bookman
Ideas of Imperfection
Idiocentrism
Idiotprogrammer
if:book
In Favor of Thinking
In Medias Res
Inside Higher Ed
jane dark’s sugarhigh!
John & Belle Have A Blog
John Crowley
Jonathan Goodwin
Kathryn Cramer
Kitabkhana
Languagehat
Languor Management
Light Reading
Like Anna Karina’s Sweater
Lime Tree
Limited Inc.
Long Pauses
Long Story, Short Pier
Long Sunday
MadInkBeard
Making Light
Maud Newton
Michael Berube
Moo2
MoorishGirl
Motime Like the Present
Narrow Shore
Neil Gaiman
Old Hag
Open University
Pas au-delà
Philobiblion
Planned Obsolescence
Printculture
Pseudopodium
Quick Study
Rake’s Progress
Reader of depressing books
Reading Room
ReadySteadyBlog
Reassigned Time
Reeling and Writhing
Return of the Reluctant
S1ngularity::criticism
Say Something Wonderful
Scribblingwoman
Seventypes
Shaken & Stirred
Silliman’s Blog
Slaves of Academe
Sorrow at Sills Bend
Sounds & Fury
Splinters
Spurious
Stochastic Bookmark
Tenured Radical
the Diaries of Franz Kafka
The Elegant Variation
The Home and the World
The Intersection
The Litblog Co-Op
The Literary Saloon
The Literary Thug
The Little Professor
The Midnight Bell
The Mumpsimus
The Pinocchio Theory
The Reading Experience
The Salt-Box
The Weblog
This Public Address
This Space: The Fire’s Blog
Thoughts, Arguments & Rants
Tingle Alley
Uncomplicatedly
Unfogged
University Diaries
Unqualified Offerings
Waggish
What Now?
William Gibson
Wordherders

Friday, April 15, 2005

Something for the Toolbox

Posted by Lawrence LaRiviere White on 04/15/05 at 10:38 AM

According to Cavell, J.L. Austin thought that one of the problems with philosophy was a lack of variety of examples, in particular when considering questions of knowledge, whether or not we can know something. One of Austin’s innovations, then, was inventing new cases: hence the asking whether or not that’s a goldfinch in the bottom of the garden.

In current criticism, there’s one example that gets used a fair bit, a petite blague that demonstrates the irrationality of supposed rational categorizations. I’m thinking of Borges’ Chinese Encyclopedia. Here it is, courtesy of Tom Van Vleck, who also lists some who have cited it:

In “The Analytical Language of John Wilkins,” Borges describes ‘a certain Chinese Encyclopedia,’ the Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge, in which it is written that animals are divided into:
1. those that belong to the Emperor,
2. embalmed ones,
3. those that are trained,
4. suckling pigs,
5. mermaids,
6. fabulous ones,
7. stray dogs,
8. those included in the present classification,
9. those that tremble as if they were mad,
10. innumerable ones,
11. those drawn with a very fine camelhair brush,
12. others,
13. those that have just broken a flower vase,
14. those that from a long way off look like flies.

Now I’m not saying that the example has gotten tedious yet. It still tickles me pink. But should it ever wear out its welcome, may I suggest an alternative, courtesy of my six year old daughter’s upcoming dance recital?

Here is the program for the extravaganza:

ARCHITECTS OF CHANGE
A Tribute to Human Spirit
(Pantages Theater May 13 & 14 2005)

PROGRAM ORDER

1st Half

Degas/Bach
Neil Armstrong
Salute to Soldiers
Harriet Tubman
Noah
Abraham Lincoln
Jacques Cousteau
Princess Grace
Sacagewea
Shakespeare
Tragedy of 911
Fred Astaire
Florence Nightingale
Thomas Edison
Princess Diana
Picasso
Queen Elizabeth II
Christopher Columbus
Mother Teresa
Brothers Grimm
Emmeline Pankhurst

2nd Half

Maya Angelou
FBI
Walt Disney
Monet
Martin Luther King Jr
Mozart
Rosa Parks
Hawaiian Queen
Betsy Ross
Gene Kelly
Helen Keller
Nelson Mandela
Amelia Earheart [sic]
Anna Pavlova
Shirley Temple
Mothers
Henry Ford
Rosie the Riveter
Spirit

Now to be accurate, this list does not so much reveal the irrationality of categorization as much as the difficulty of deriving a narrative from an encyclopedia of remarkable people (& organizations? Where did the FBI come from? Will the transition have something to do with Angelou’s case file? Surely she has one, being famous & leftish in the 60’s. But how do you follow with Walt Disney?)

But there’s another level of surrealism unavailable to you, readers spread out over the internets, who won’t be at the Pantages. Perhaps those of you with children know this already, but each of these names represents a short dance vignette performed by a separate class. So there’s also the issue of interpretation. For example, my daughter & three other girls are doing Florence Nightingale. The dance involves lots of praying hands. I know Nightingale was devout, but I didn’t think it was her defining attribute. I thought she was more kicking-bureaucratic-ass-and-taking-names type.


Comments

I’ve always thought that the Borges list was a parody of the Buddhist list of the 75 (or 100) dharmas which make up reality, which include (samples) “Seeing, volition, desire, vigor, stupidity, forgetfulness, torpor, the tongue, sound, differentiation of species, continuing/abiding, space, time, otherwiseness, and ipseity.”

<a href="http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/outlines/100dharmas-big5.htm">100 dharmas</b>

http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/outlines/100dharmas-big5.htm

By John Emerson on 04/15/05 at 12:15 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Well, I love Borges, but his “certain Chinese Encyclopedia” does not show that categories are irrational. On the contrary, it is only because many (but in no way all) ways of categorizing things in the world are, in fact, rational that we can even understand that the cited division of animals is irrational (or at least very difficult to justify the relation of what is included within).

Many categories are certainly culturally contingent, but that doesn’t mean that they are either arbitrary or irrational. I’m not an expert in neuroscience or cognitive science but there seems to be a good deal of evidence that certain categorizations are biologically determined or cognitively determined due to the need to adapt to factors in one’s environment.

By on 04/15/05 at 12:44 PM | Permanent link to this comment

What on earth are those little tykes going to do with the “tragedy of 911”? The mind boggles. But at least it’s followed by Fred Astaire.

Re. the animal classification: Dear Mr. Borges: my dog fits into several categories (3 [technically]; 6, in some senses; 8 by default [and there’s a whole other problem]; frequently 9; 13; 14, depending on the eyesight of the viewer). Has my mini-Schnauzer just caused a singularity? What should I do? Signed, Confused.

By Miriam Jones on 04/15/05 at 12:58 PM | Permanent link to this comment

I defy you to produce an even halfway reasonable classification such that one object doesn’t fall under multiple categories (it will be non-hierarchical, of course).

By ben wolfson on 04/15/05 at 01:00 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Otherwiseness and stupidity are my favorite dharmas.

There are two kinds of people in the world, the ones who think that all systems of categories are irrational, and the ones who don’t.

Maybe three categories, if two aren’t enough. Add “neither of the above.”

Four categories.........

By John Emerson on 04/15/05 at 01:40 PM | Permanent link to this comment

another parody on classification from Charles Dickens:

“He read up for the subject, at my desire, in the Encyclopedia Britannica.”
“Indeed!” said Mr. Pickwick; “I was not aware that that valuable work contained any information respecting Cinese metaphysics.”
“He read, sir” rejoined Pott..."for metaphysics under the letter M, and for China under the letter C, and combined his information sir!”

By on 04/15/05 at 02:23 PM | Permanent link to this comment

James-- Last month, Chris over at Mixing Memory put up a very nice post that speaks to your wonder over the cogsci of categorization. Find it here:

http://mixingmemory.blogspot.com/2005/03/basics-of-basic-level.html

All best--

By benjamin morris on 04/17/05 at 06:59 AM | Permanent link to this comment

A classification system is only ‘rational’ or ‘irrational’ if viewed from outisde.  We are all inside some world view and everything looks rational with respect to its assumptions.  Read the Borges story: he says “... obviously there is no classification of the universe that is not arbitrary and conjectural. The reason is very simple: we do not know what the universe is.” Arbitrary is not irrational. As William Bronk says, “How should we speak of the real world if this world were real?”

By Tom Van Vleck on 04/17/05 at 03:46 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Tom:

My formulation is crude. I meant to characterize the use of the Borges bit rather than the bit itself, but even then I was talking more about a strawman than any actual critic. What I really meant was to set up a joke. (Though I do take the Borges to be a joke also. Which is not to say it can’t have serious implications, but I think the comic element does make a difference in whatever conclusions one may draw from it.)

By on 04/17/05 at 06:31 PM | Permanent link to this comment

This classification system might be of special interest to our friends at 400 Windmills. From a letter from Heinrich von Kleist to his fiancée, September 14, 1800:

Nowhere do we more readily receive an idea of the cultural level of a city and its prevailing tastes than in its reading libraries.
Listen to what I encountered there, and I need say no more about the intellectual level of Würzburg.
“We would like to have a couple of good things to read.”
“The collection is at your disposal.”
“Something of Wieland?”
“I rather doubt it.”
“Or Schiller, or Goethe?”
“They would be hard to find.”
[...]
“You mean, you do not have them here in your library?”
“They are not allowed.”
“What sort of books are all these on the shelves, then?”
“Chivalric romances. On the right, chivalric romances with ghosts; on the left, chivalric romances without ghosts, as you prefer.”
“Ah! I see.”

By Ray Davis on 04/17/05 at 10:41 PM | Permanent link to this comment

A bigger problem here, that no one seems to have addressed yet, is how the dancers will move smoothly from an exploration of Abraham Lincoln’s biography to Jacques Cousteau’s undersea explorations.

By joseph tate on 04/19/05 at 02:27 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Just grand: a lovely mess from all of you--and definitely of interest to 400 Windmills folk: I hope the ref. is all right: http://www.400windmills.com/2005/04/cervantes_in_a_.html Thanks--especially Lawrence (as ever--and may the recital go well!) and Ray!

By Anne on 04/20/05 at 09:03 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Add a comment:

Name:
Email:
Location:
URL:

 

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: