Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 13, No. 31.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
[1] From: Elisabeth Burr (49)
Subject: Re: 13.0027 what for?
[2] From: Luigi M Bianchi (35)
Subject: Re: "We would know how we know what we know"
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 06:31:22 +0100
From: Elisabeth Burr
Subject: Re: 13.0027 what for?
I would like to raise the point that Humanities
Computing as you propose it in your paper
should not be reserved to post graduates, because
it seems to me that we have to start earlier. Up to
now, our book centered disciplines have been based
on a book centered culture and we have learnt right
from the start to handle aspects of it. Although our
students now, in a way, grow up with computers,
their mind is formed in a way that doesn't help humanities
computing, i.e. it is either still printed text based or
not printed text based (because they don't even read).
Computers are conceived of as tools for writing or storing
and organising information, the Internet is conceived of as
a tool for looking up information.
The way of thinking we need in order to pose humanities
computing questions is something we have to teach. What
I notice in my odd computer based seminars is that I am
trying to apply computing to research from one moment to the
next without having the time nor the possibility to build
up the reflection about what we are trying to do, about what
is an electronic text, about what makes it different from other
text, why would we want to do what we do, and why do we do
it at all in Romance linguistics. I try to carry them through such
a seminar lasting just one semester hoping that the results will
show them what it is there for. This is not enough.
I get more and more the impression that either we base teaching
of Romance linguistics as much as possible on applied computing
which would mean, however, that we would have to reduce what,
up to now, we try to teach students about what is Romance lin-
guistics, about the history of a language, about research which has
been done, or we have to create BA courses which combine Romance
linguistics/studies with applied computing.
I would argue for the last. Students thus formed could then go on to
an MA (PhD) as you propose it. They would have the sort of insight
they need to integrate it with a much broader perspective.
Elisabeth
-------------------------------------------
PD Dr'in Elisabeth Burr
FB 3/Romanistik
Gerhard Mercator Universitaet-GH Duisburg
Geibelstrasse 41
47048 Duisburg
Tel.: +49 203 3791957
fax: +49 203 3793122
e-mail: Elisabeth.Burr@uni-duisburg.de
http://www.uni-duisburg.de/FB3/ROMANISTIK/PERSONAL/Burr/burr.htm
Editor of:
http://www.uni-duisburg.de/FB3/ROMANISTIK/home.html
http://www.uni-duisburg.de/FB3/SILFI/home.html
http://www.uni-duisburg.de/FB3/DRV/
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 06:31:50 +0100
From: Luigi M Bianchi
Subject: Re: "We would know how we know what we know"
Dear Colleagues,
I am surprised at the sparse negative reaction to Willard
McCarty's article [ http://ilex.cc.kcl.ac.uk/wlm/essays/know/ ]
against a background of silence.
Tito Orlandi's outburst
[ http://ilex.cc.kcl.ac.uk/wlm/essays/know/ ] seems to be more about
the disproportionate dominance of the English language in the
computing world than about the substance of McCarty's essay:
"What upsets me most [...] is the well-known phenomenon by which
our (Italian) milieu will soon accept ideas, preached in Italy for
years, only because they issue [now] from the Anglo-Saxon world."
[my translation.]
Orlandi is probably right in this regard, and perhaps McCarty
should have addressed more explicitly the question of language in his
discussion of the exchange of "knowledge instruments" in the "trading
zone."
Much more puzzling to me is the silent welcome with which
McCarty's article has been greeted. His reference to David Hilbert's
famous address is quite appropriate and timely, unless we subscribe
somehow to a purely natural, evolutionary theory (memetics?) of the
field. I think the problem may be that readers have confused the
intent of the article: it is not a "plan," but a strategy. As such,
McCarty has illustrated it with _examples_ from his own work, but he
has been quite explicit about the purpose of such illustrations:
"My intention is to provoke discussion among computing humanists
across the disciplines, so that they may ask, each of his or her own
speciality, what current problems are most productively susceptible
to computing."
I am indeed looking forward to such a debate.
Luigi M Bianchi
_____________________________________________________________
Luigi M Bianchi
Science and Technology Studies phone: +1-416-736-5213
Atkinson College, York University fax: +1-416-736-5766
4700 Keele St, Toronto, Ontario e-mail: lbianchi@yorku.ca
Canada M3J-1P3 http://www.yorku.ca/sts/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humanist Discussion Group
Information at
=========================================================================
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 13, No. 35.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 22:11:29 +0100
From: Matt Kirschenbaum
Subject: Re: 13.0031 humanities computing discussion
> --[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 06:31:50 +0100
> From: Luigi M Bianchi
> >
[ . . .]
> Much more puzzling to me is the silent welcome with which
> McCarty's article has been greeted.
[ . . .]
> "My intention is to provoke discussion among computing humanists
> across the disciplines, so that they may ask, each of his or her own
> speciality, what current problems are most productively susceptible
> to computing."
>
> I am indeed looking forward to such a debate.
I don't think the "silence" surrounding Willard's paper is any
reflection of a lack of interest or appreciation; no doubt many people
are hard at work on their upcoming ACH/ALLC presentations. ;)
Some months ago I had occassion to articulate my own view of humanities
computing and wrote these sentences:
"In a paper entitled "How Much Information is There in the World?"
(answer: "a few thousand petabytes"), Michael Lesk is able to estimate
that within the next two years the efficiency of computer memory will be
such that we will be able to digitally save all information comprising
any part of the human record -- even (theoretically) everything that
everyone remembers ("for a single person, this isn't even hard").
Calculations of this sort are carried out in units like terabytes (1000
gigabytes), petabytes (1000 terabytes) and exabytes (1000 petabytes).
The very existence of such units of measurement calls upon us to
contemplate something like a technological sublime, a simultaneous
ecstasy and oblivion immanent in our encounters with the virtual. But
these figures also underscore the necessity of introducing structure and
material perspective into our information and data objects. If
materiality inheres in medium, in media, and in mediation, then I would
argue that the materiality of electronic objects must consist in such
matters as the choice of a certain Document Type Definition to represent
text in accordance with some particular intellectual and editorial
prejudice.
"For me, humanities computing is not about objectivty and totality, the
stuff of Lesk's calculations. It is not about sublime fantasies of data
and access, the vertigo of William Gibson's "lines of light" and "city
lights receeding." Humanities computing is about choices and
compromises, decisions and interventions leveraged against the terabytes
and petabytes of the data flow. We achieve this leverage through
attention to what we in the humanities have always understood best:
matters of representation. Computers allow us to build working models of
those representations, models informed by our knowledge and imagination
of images, texts, and cultural memory."
--
Some additional thoughts on Willard's paper, which by and large I read
with admiration. But if I have criticisms, it is that it devotes too few
words to the accomplishments the field has seen already. I can think
offhand of as many as half a dozen major electronic editing/textbase
projects whose promise has, for many years (since the early nineties),
been discussed largely in speculative terms, but which are now gradually
coming to fruition -- the time line here would range from perhaps late
1997 on through the coming year. (This period may come to be seen as
something of a watershed.) The importance of including such work in a
broad-based discussion of humanities computing does not lie simply in
creating an occassion for celebratory prose; rather, the intellectual
and technical agenda of the field, in materially significant ways (grant
funding, for example) will in large part be driven by just such a track
record of successes (and failures).*
It's noteworthy that rhetorically, many of the projects I have in mind
make the claim that they will serve as "models" for future efforts. In
other words, they are self-consciously attempting to contribute to an
agenda for humanities computing as a field. Moreover, we should
recognize that a critical mass of large-scale electronic
editions/textbases will bring into focus an additional "meta" dimension
of research: cross-collection searches are a single obvious example,
which we can anticipate leading to new work in data standards, metadata,
and digital libraries (the digital library community is also, I think,
neglected in Willard's piece, but in many ways this seems to me the most
vital site humanities computing has today). So in short, I think the
various trajectories individual projects set in motion "from below" have
_tremendous_ bearing on humanities computing as a whole, and we would do
well to acknowledge and record these more explicitly when surveying the
field. The institutional conditions within which we work are too complex
(and too often, too volatile) for clear distinctions between how an
individual project is framed, funded, and supported and how the agenda
of the field as a whole might be impacted.
Anyway: some rough thoughts. Certainly I hope this is a conversation
that will continue not only here on Humanist but also next month in
Charlottesville. Best, Matt
* For a discussion of "The Importance of Failure," a minor theme in
Willard's essay, see John Unsworth's article of that same name at
.
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Matthew G. Kirschenbaum
Department of English
Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities
University of Virginia
mgk3k@virginia.edu or mattk@virginia.edu
http://www.iath.virginia.edu/~mgk3k/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humanist Discussion Group
Information at
=========================================================================
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 13, No. 44.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 20:54:29 +0100
From: Geoffrey Rockwell
Subject: Questions
Dear Willard,
Your essay on the principles of Humanities Computing puts an interesting
problem before us; what are the interesting problems of Humanities
Computing? I would like to suggest a few (additional) questions that might
frame the problem inspired by your essay.
1. What is a computer?
This is on the surface an easy question to answer. I could point to the
object before me and say "that is a computer", but defining the computer
becomes a problem when we start asking about the computer as a cultural
object. This question triggers a series of questions about the place of
technology and technological discourse in contemporary culture. A computer
is no longer just a computer and we in the humanities have the experience
unpacking cultural artifacts to contribute to the dialogue.
2. What is the history of computing?
This question I believe we have to continue to ask in order to be honest
with ourselves. Part of doing Humanities Computing should be the doing of
it in an historically informed fashion. In particular we need to ask
ourselves about the history of Humanities Computing and whether it might be
an administrative artifact. By this I mean that the history of Humanities
Computing might have more to do with the way universities organize
disciplines for administrative purposes than any inherent virtue.
3. How does the computer inform content?
With this question I am trying to get at the relationship between the form
of computing and the content we structure in MIDI files, graphics, WWW
sites, hypertexts and TEI encoded text files. I believe this is the central
question of Humanities Computing. Is there are relationship between the
forms imposed by computer applications and the content held by them? We may
not be able to answer this question in general; it could be that we have to
look at specific areas like text encoding, hypertext, electronic music, and
multimedia for questions we can answer.
4. What possibilities for human excellence are released by the computer?
Humanities Computing is not only a critical or intellectual discipline that
comments on computing from the privileged tower. We need to invite the
creative and performative arts back into Humanities Computing by posing
questions that are not answered but acted on. The creative artist does not
always deal with a problem when they create a work, so we must leave room
in the discipline for performances and original creations made possible by
the computer.
5. How can we learn from computing?
I leave the question about learning and teaching to the last. We are all
amateurs in this area, in the best sense. Thus I see it as a question of
how we can learn together, not how those who have mastered something can
teach others. Part of this learning is sharing a sense of danger and
possibility with others. When I know what I know I will teach it.
Yours,
Geoffrey Rockwell
Humanities Computing
grockwel@mcmaster.ca
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humanist Discussion Group
Information at
=========================================================================
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 13, No. 36.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
[1] From: Elisabeth Burr (32)
Subject: Re: 13.0031 humanities computing discussion
[2] From: Francois Lachance (59)
Subject: who by
[3] From: (8)
Subject: Tenure and electronic publication
[4] From: Jim Marchand (19)
Subject: thanks
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 20:22:48 +0100
From: Elisabeth Burr
Subject: Re: 13.0031 humanities computing discussion
I have just read Tito Orlandi's "The Scholarly Environment of Humanities
Computing" and I wanted to thank him for the description of the situation
at most European universities (cf. 5. "The European connection") because it
shows me that the problems I am having with getting Humanities compu- ting
going at Duisburg university are not personal ones and aren't due to my own
incapability (as I tend to think when I am really frustrated after ha- ving
had another of those tedious discussions where I am told that corpora can
be loaded down from the net or you just have to bye CD-ROM editions of
newspapers or where a computerlinguist doesn't even try to understand what
I am trying him about Humanities computing).
That is why ACO*Hum seemed like an anchor and I still hope that we will use
it in such a way, that we can create a net of Humanities computing where we
create European undergraduate courses by pulling individual courses
together, use boarderline countries and their universities to create
collaboration, develop Internet courses, use Erasmus/Socrates to send our
students abroad to get what we can't offer ecc. If we could manage to
present such a course to our administration and ministry we might get it
through, above all in the restructuring phase we are in at the moment. We
should, however, combine these courses with languages in order to get
students to go abroad and we need people who will look after them when they
are abroad, i.e. we need very good collaboration. As soon as we get this
going then we could push for a broader setup as Willard describes it.
Elisabeth Burr
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PD Dr'in Elisabeth Burr
FB 3/Romanistik Gerhard-Mercator-Universitaet
Geibelstrasse 41 47048 Duisburg
+49 203 3791957 Elisabeth.Burr@uni-duisburg.de
http://www.uni-duisburg.de/FB3/ROMANISTIK/PERSONAL/Burr/burr.htm
Editor of:
http://www.uni-duisburg.de/FB3/ROMANISTIK/home.html
http://www.uni-duisburg.de/FB3/SILFI/home.html
http://www.uni-duisburg.de/FB3/DRV/home.html
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 20:23:05 +0100
From: Francois Lachance
Subject: who by
Willard,
Thank you for your persistence in bringing attention to the
ruminations you offer at
>
I have a question about the genesis of the text which is related to a
tension I perceive to be at work in the credit question raised by
Professor Orlandi and in the trader metaphor. Question: were the notes
added after the major section of the text was completed or were they
stepping stones in the development of the major section? I know the
questions of orchestration and textual genesis seem far from the
"content" of the essay. However, I do believe such questions hinge
upon the currency of the metaphors which are placed in circulation by
the publication of the essay.
allow me, if you will, a little illustration:
Note number seven on Support Staff reads:
Scholars and scientists in all fields have found
that the older configurations of such
services, according to which the principal
investigator has the questions and the staff person
provides the answers, are no longer valid, if they
ever were; as both the technological expertise
and the scholarly range necessary for research grow,
it is also for the formulation and the
refinement of the questions themselves that principal
investigators have to turn to 'staff', whom it is
increasingly necessary -- not a matter of courtesy,
much less as a matter of condescension, but
a matter of justice and accuracy -- to identify as colleagues
in the research enterprise.
and the "Mechanical Primitives" section of the essay, if I summarize
if correctly here, invokes an individual scholar as a consumer of
software products.
As may perhaps emerge from this juxtaposition, the content question
becomes one of the symmetry between production and consumption. This
is so very well elucidated in your synopsis on the role of modeling in
humanities discourse that is seems puzzling as to why it disappears
from the essay's horizon at this point. If I may venutre an opinion,
it is the interference of the the trader metaphor which shifts the
essay's initial locus of concern -- the what of the building-testing
activity -- to a concern with "legitimation" -- the who of the
building-testing activity.
The trader's transactions -selling and buying- under certain judicial
regimes occur in the private sphere. In the public sphere, diplomatic
relations also lead to exchanges of knowledge. The ambassadorial model
in the form of the student exchange or a visiting professorship
already exists in the academy. It may just lend a bit more
self-similarity across scale to the various levels in your
survey/program which if I do not abstract too too much is grounded on
the belief in principled feedback between researchers and their
objects of study and between researchers themselves as well as between
researchers and a wider public.
If such be the case, then is not philology still queen since
translation animates your tentative neo-trivium (history [the past],
philosohy [the possible future] and sociology [the present
relations]). Or is the regal model dead?
Francois
has been, is and most likely will be
very much fascinated by
the discourse of machines and models
--[3]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 20:24:43 +0100
From:
Subject: Tenure and electronic publication
I have finally gotten my hands on the formal statement proposed by
Berkeley's Library Committee to the campus's Academic Senate, with respet
to faculty review and different media:
"In the course of reviewing faculty for merit and promotion, when there
are grounds for believing that processes of peer review and quality
assurance are the same in different media, equal value should be attached
to the different forms of scholarly communication."
Charles Faulhaber Department of Spanish UC Berkeley, CA 94720-2590
(510) 642-3781 FAX (510) 642-7589 cbf@socrates.berkeley.edu
--[4]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 20:25:04 +0100
From: Jim Marchand
Subject: thanks
This is a personal thanks to all those who wrote to my powers that be in my
behalf in re office space and computer connection. The result is that I
have (to quote my Indian friend who speaks Indian English) somewhat more
commodious if not so sumptuous quarters and will retain my ethernet
connection.
We were discussing evaluation of computer work in a humanities environment,
and I can assure you that no one takes internet work or listwork seriously.
I once wrote our Research Board, asking for equipment to help me with
internet work and received a letter back reminding me that this was not
scholarly activity. I am sure that such things will change as people get
more savvy, but our Research Board is staffed with us.
I feel that much of the good scholarship is being done nowadays on the net,
but I don't know how one might be able to evaluate it. Also, note that
payment for work done (on the basis of some evaluation) is or is not in the
coin of the realm. I, for example, was not looking for a raise, nor for
promotion (neither of these was likely to be forthcoming), but for a cozy
nook in which to contemplate ones books and talk to ones colleagues. If, on
the other hand, you are looking for pay for your work ... Who was it that
said: `Give him a coin if he wishes to be paid for his work'?
Jim Marchand.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humanist Discussion Group
Information at
=========================================================================
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 13, No. 45.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 21:24:05 +0100
From: Domenico Fiormonte esit04@holyrood.ed.ac.uk
Subject: "sfoghi" & humanities computing
I've read with attention Tito Orlandi's posting on
http://RmCisadu.let.uniroma1.it/~orlandi/mccarty1.html. It is often true
that the English speaking world gives little or superficial attention to
what's happening in other countries. Sadly, this is not just the case with
humanities computing. (Just think about the pathetic and discouraging
coverage of European news in British newspapers: they can't even spell
foreign names.) It is a general attitude produced by a complex political,
social and cultural situation. Two years ago I was personally involved in a
public debate (see: http://www.ed.ac.uk/~esit04/TALBOT7.htm) on the
unhealthy influence that the American model of higher education is having
on our universities; so in many ways I share Orlandi's concerns.
However, it is fair to say that if we can speak about an hegemony of
Anglo-saxon culture (read: scholarship) we have to describe it in terms of
at least an 'enlightened dictatorship'... As far as our field is
concerned, the Anglo-Saxon Directoire has always showed a reasonable
degree of interest in research, theories and applications coming from other
countries. I believe that scholarly journals (i.e. LLC or CHum),
associations and conferences have shown in the last ten years an
increasing (and genuine) interest in other cultural milieux. In this
respect, especially considering the relative weight of its investments in
IT, Italy has certainly not been underepresented.
One of the last selections of papers on humanities computing published in
the UK (Digital Demotic,
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/ohc/index.html) begins with a highly
regarded keynote address by Father Roberto Busa, and ends with a final note
by Richard Heseltine, who describes enthusiastically a distance learning
project led by an Italian economist, Umberto Sulpasso. What is more, all
three presentations given by Italian scholars at DRH '97 were included in
the selection. And there were more than fifty presentations at that conference.
But I'd to say more. Last year, I had the honour to organise an
international seminar where we invited many of the leading figures of HC.
The conference was an opportunity for Italian researchers -- and
especially for *young* researchers -- to show how rich and complex is our
country's involvement in humanities computing. The conference was a
success, and the audience, especially those who were not aware of the
research, was impressed by the breadth and originality of the Italians'
work. Among the speakers were Willard McCarty and Lou Burnard, who
contributed with their constant attention, care and intellectual respect to
the success of this gathering. I am deeply indebted to them and to Jon
Usher (another Anglo-saxon) who gave me the opportunity to organise this event.
Now I have a question for professor Orlandi. Would this event have been
possible in Italy? I don't mean of course the organisation of the event in
itself. You have organised a similar, much bigger conference in Rome on the
same topics. What I mean is, would have been possible in Italy (for example
in your Centre) for a 'dottorando' (Phd student) to get a 5000 pounds
grant, receive full administrative and logistic support from his/her
department, and, what more important, to have *freedom* in what to do
(themes and topics) and whom to invite?
So before speaking of the Anglo-Saxon hegemony, I would ask myself what we
are capable of doing in our respective countries, and what cultural, social
and political forces are at stake. What I will say here does not question
either the scholarship or the intellectual honesty of professor Orlandi (as
well as of other non-English speaking scholars!). But it raises questions
of how we all conceive, and indeed practice, scholarly work and conduct our
academic relationships.
I think that until we are capable of seeking recognition for our collective
efforts, rather than for our individual talent, the attention from the
international academic community will continue to be superficial and
erratic. International collaboration is essential, but before that we need
to work on common objectives and initiatives in our own countries.
The time is ripe for an International School of Humanities Computing, and
subsequently for an European Master. This (wishful thinking?) would be
possible only if we learn to coordinate our forces within our national
institutions. I'd really like to see these topics discussed in the next
session of Computers, Literature and Philology, that we are organising in
Rome next November (an official announcement will be issued very soon).
I'll do my best to convince invited speakers and local organisers to
dedicate a special session to this topic.
As for "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", I want to reassure Tito
Orlandi. My friend and mentor Roberto Vacca
(http://www.ed.ac.uk/~esit04/vacca_1.htm) would put it this way: "I don't
care if others 'steal' my ideas. That means they are worth something.
Actually what worries me is when people don't care about them. Which means
they stink..."
Concluding:
1) Anglo-saxons must learn foreign languages;
2) others too;
3) everybody is expected to: a) produce theories *and* applications *and*
show substantial teaching records, if they want their scholarship (or
'primateship') be respected and acknowledged; 3.a) if they seek world-wide
recognition, they have to present their work in the lingua franca of our
times (English);
3.b) if they don't want to write or publish in English, they have to bear
(or enjoy, Italian being my first language) the burden, and stop complaining.
There are many languages in this world, and all of them are perfect and
dignified means of expression. Some languages are (politically) stronger,
some are weaker. Culture and advancement of knowledge have little to do
with success (not to mention happiness). But if it is success and 'mundane
recognition' that we are looking for, well, then "let's face the music, and
dance."
Personally, I am not very interested in that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Domenico Fiormonte
University of Edinburgh
School of European Languages and Cultures
DHT, George Square - EH8 9XJ United Kingdom
Fax: 44+131-6506536
http://www.ed.ac.uk/~esit04/digitalv.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PLEASE AVOID SENDING WORD ATTACHMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humanist Discussion Group
Information at
=========================================================================
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 13, No. 50.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 09:25:51 +0100
From: Matt Kirschenbaum
Subject: figured it out
Q: What is humanities computing?
A: Humanities computing is what happens while we're busy writing bigger
grants.
Matt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humanist Discussion Group
Information at
=========================================================================
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 13, No. 58.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 17:52:49 -0700
From: Jascha Kessler
Subject: Re: 13.0035 humanities computing discussion
I wrote about this possibility in an article published some decades
ago in the Massachusetts Review. I tried to withdraw it, because I
thought maybe I was nuts and everyone would scout me. The editor
insisted on making it the lead article. I began with idea of the
universal record and universalized it, and went on to discuss the
unreason of reason, etc. I guess I could look up the title, were
anyone to be interested. I rewrote it last year for the hell of it,
to make some of the language clearer. But I was talking about the
next Millenium as it seems to me now, and our failure even to begin
to imagine it, so sunk are we in details or mechanisms. I remember
the subtitle, ...'Our No-Win Situation." It may have been 25
years ago now, I fear, the editor long since dead, Robert Tucker.
Jascha Kessler
Jascha Kessler
Professor of English & Modern Literature, UCLA
Telephone/Facsimile: (310) 393-4648
http://www.english.ucla.edu/jkessler/
http://www.xlibris.com/JaschaKessler.html
http://www.xlibris.com/RapidTransit.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humanist Discussion Group
Information at
=========================================================================
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 13, No. 61.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 10:20:19 +0200
From: Giuseppe Gigliozzi
Subject: Humanities computing discussion
I've read with attention the humanities computing discussion and I
would like to express my point of view. My text is really too long for a
e-mail message, So I decided to send a short abstract to the list
and to put some html pages on the CRILet^=D2s web site. You can find
these pages at the address:
Complete Text
(I beg Willard^=D2s and Titos^=D2s pardon for the little joke).
[...omissis...]
Giuseppe Gigliozzi
------------------
Giuseppe Gigliozzi
Dipartimento di Studi Linguistici e Letterari
Facolta' di Lettere e Filosofia - Universita' di Roma "La Sapienza"
Piazza Aldo Moro, 5 - 00185 Roma Italia
Via Andrea Cesalpino, 12 - 14 - 00185 Roma Italia
Tel. ++.06.4991.3183 - ++.06.44239405 - ++.06.44243482
Fax. ++.06.4991.3575 - ++.06.44240331=20
e-mail gigliozzi@axrma.uniroma1.it - gigliozz@rmcisadu.let.uniroma1.it
http://rmcisadu.let.uniroma1.it/crilet - http://crilet.let.uniroma1.it