mfbukowski Posted February 11, 2013 Posted February 11, 2013 I like Seth a lot and I am not an expert on Aristotle. I don't want to be.What I do know is that the medieval concept of "substance" is pretty irrelevant to mainstream American and British philosophy of the last hundred years or so, and I think that it is clear that the idea of a Transcendent Neoplatonic God has serious problems as seen from this philosophical point of view which stresses philosophy of language.
Daniel Peterson Posted February 11, 2013 Posted February 11, 2013 Otherwise known as Mr Stakanovich if you didn't know.Yes, I know.And here's a response to him:http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2013/02/all-men-by-nature-desire-to-know-wrote-aristotle-unfortunately-though-some-who-think-they-do-just-dont.html 1
LifeOnaPlate Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 Book announcements will be forthcoming as we move forward with a larger web presence (blogging, facebook, twitter, etc.) in the coming months. The Insights newsletter will also be a good source to keep up to date on the goings-on at the Institute, including forthcoming publications as we announce them. At some point soon we'll have the links and info available for everyone. There's a lot of work to do, not as much time for message boards. In the meantime, Carl included our contact number above for anyone interested in talking about things.
sethpayne Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 I'm not quite sure, Seth, why you felt the need to bring this issue into the discussion on this thread. If, as it seems, it was just to be snotty, I have to admit that I'm disappointed. You're generally a better person than that.Dan,Please note that I never mentioned your name in connection with this article. The contents of which I am certainly in no place to judge -- I've read Aristotle, but never intensely. I have, perhaps, simply found a very clumsy way of illustrating to Bill what direct criticism looks like. I must admit, I've been really surprised at how personal and nasty this whole MI affair has been. I'm not privy to any real private details but I do have friends and colleagues connected to the MI and other Mormon Studies-related orgs/publications. By proxy they were accused of very dastardly things and the whole Mormon Studies enterprise was cast as a tool of Satan himself. Yet, when I look around and ask myself: "Who or what has produced the most goodwill towards Mormonism, the Church, and its members in the past 7-10 years?"The answer is clear. Folks like Richard Bushman, Terryl Givens, Armand Mauss, David Bokovoy, Matt Bowman, Chris Smith and others all contributed to an environment where Mormonism is taken seriously academically, spiritually, and culturally. When asked about why the Church denied priesthood to black males prior to 1978 I, and many others, offer up Bush and Mauss. The response is often one of understanding as it becomes clear that Mormonism, and pretty much every other social group in the US, has a complicated relationship with race. The same is true of all difficult issues.Mormon Studies introduces Mormonism to an incredibly wide audience. It does so in a way that is rigorous and trusted. BYU should be its center just as Notre Dame is at the forefront of Catholic Studies. Unfortunately, it isn't -- yet. An effort to embrace Mormon Studies is not one that should be demonized.By all means, if there is an appetite for "traditional" apologetic then by all means keep publishing it. Bradford apparently had a different vision for the Maxwell Institute. So be it. As to how it all went down ... I don't know and it doesn't concern me. In any case, my intent was not to be snotty to you. My intent was to be snotty to Bill. Someday I may very well regret this instance of snottiness.
blackstrap Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 So , someone on the school yard tells me , " Hey , I've got 3 chocolate bars in my back pocket ! " I say , " Great ! , what kind are they ? " His friend says to me ," Are you calling him a fibber ? " Something doesn't compute here. On the other hand, there is a phrase well used on the playground that might be apropo. " Put up or shut up " Of course, this forum is not the playground .
mfbukowski Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 Yes, I know.And here's a response to him:http://www.patheos.c...-just-dont.htmlI have had some limited correspondence with Daniel Graham a while back, regarding the LDS perspective and Heraclitus, and I know he knows his stuff- no question about it.
mfbukowski Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 Yes, I know.And here's a response to him:http://www.patheos.c...-just-dont.htmlTo his credit, Stak posted this on the board that shall not be namedETA 2: I stand corrected! Dan's Blog Post
Daniel Peterson Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 (edited) Yes, that was good on his part.Now I'm being accused of snottiness (by someone else) because I said "whatever his name is." But the fact is that I only know him, to the very limited extent that I do, as "MrStakhanovite" or, from the two times (I think) that I've looked at his blog, as "Servile Conformist." I've never known what his real name is, but learned it here today for the first time -- if, indeed, his real name actually is "Patrick Mitford."And I'm a "sad, pathetic, little man" (according to yet another) because I've responded to his extremely nasty criticism of me -- hardly his first. What a brazen double standard! Latter-day Saints are supposed to shut up and take it. These folks can call us names, impugn our integrity, dismiss us as incompetent posers, and etc., and we're effectively supposed to just smile and concede it all.. Edited February 12, 2013 by Daniel Peterson 3
Daniel Peterson Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 (edited) I'm not privy to any real private details but I do have friends and colleagues connected to the MI and other Mormon Studies-related orgs/publications. By proxy they were accused of very dastardly things and the whole Mormon Studies enterprise was cast as a tool of Satan himself. Yet, when I look around and ask myself: "Who or what has produced the most goodwill towards Mormonism, the Church, and its members in the past 7-10 years?"The answer is clear. Folks like Richard Bushman, Terryl Givens, Armand Mauss, David Bokovoy, Matt Bowman, Chris Smith and others all contributed to an environment where Mormonism is taken seriously academically, spiritually, and culturally.One of the many, many weirdities about all of this is that I actually have nothing whatever against that kind of Mormon studies, and that I consider Richard Bushman, Terryl Givens, Armand Mauss, and David Bokovoy friends. (I scarcely know Chris Smith, and have never, to the best of my knowledge, met Matt Bowman.)That's one of the many reasons why I think the purge of last year was bizarre and unnecessary.Mormon Studies introduces Mormonism to an incredibly wide audience. It does so in a way that is rigorous and trusted. BYU should be its center just as Notre Dame is at the forefront of Catholic Studies.I've always contended for precisely that, and very vocally so.An effort to embrace Mormon Studies is not one that should be demonized.And you won't find me demonizing it. I think it has its very important place. That's not the issue.. Edited February 12, 2013 by Daniel Peterson 2
Bill Hamblin Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 (edited) Book announcements will be forthcoming as we move forward with a larger web presence (blogging, facebook, twitter, etc.) in the coming months. The Insights newsletter will also be a good source to keep up to date on the goings-on at the Institute, including forthcoming publications as we announce them. At some point soon we'll have the links and info available for everyone. There's a lot of work to do, not as much time for message boards. In the meantime, Carl included our contact number above for anyone interested in talking about things.Come on Blair. Do you really need to create an entire web page to tell people the names of the five books MI will publish in 2013? Really? It's a secret? It's confidential?You could have listed the five books in less time that it took to try to explain why you don't have time to list the five books. Edited February 12, 2013 by Bill Hamblin 2
Bill Hamblin Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 Dan,Please note that I never mentioned your name in connection with this article. The contents of which I am certainly in no place to judge -- I've read Aristotle, but never intensely. I have, perhaps, simply found a very clumsy way of illustrating to Bill what direct criticism looks like. Dan was first author on that particular article. I contributed some comments. Whoever you thought you may have been trying to insult, you were insulting Dan. 1
Bill Hamblin Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 the whole Mormon Studies enterprise was cast as a tool of Satan himself. By whom? Not by me. Not by Dan. I've never objected to Mormon studies. I simply objected to destroying classic FARMS. https://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/what-the-maxwell-institute-controversy-is-really-about/Mormon Studies introduces Mormonism to an incredibly wide audience. It does so in a way that is rigorous and trusted. BYU should be its center just as Notre Dame is at the forefront of Catholic Studies. Unfortunately, it isn't -- yet. An effort to embrace Mormon Studies is not one that should be demonized.No one has demonized it. No one objects to it. The only thing that has been demonized is apologetics. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 (edited) Come on Blair. Do you really need to create an entire web page to tell people the names of the five books MI will publish in 2013? Really? It's a secret? It's confidential?You could have listed the five books in less time that it took to try to explain why you don't have time to list the five books.Or a straight-up answer regarding whether the institute will engage in meaningful apologetics. Elaboration would be welcome, but the question could be answered with a single word of two letters or three, as the case may be.Edited to add:There's a third possible single-word choice: "Maybe."I could be content with that as well -- for now. Edited February 12, 2013 by Scott Lloyd 1
Bill Hamblin Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 Blair, I don't envy you your new job of PR for the MI. Fairly or unfairly, the MI has taken a serious PR hit in the wake of the purge and debacle. Now you've been hired to try to clean up the mess. Good luck. If the MI really has five books in the queue to publish this year, that's fantastic news for MI. Personally, I sincerely hope that MI will continue to publish classic-FARMS books and articles, including apologetics. On the other hand, if MI does have five books in the queue for 2013, I can't possibly imagine why you would not want to make some sort of "forthcoming books" announcement just like every publisher in the world does. "We have five books we will publish this year but we don't want to tell you what they are" is an absurd position to take. Of course, if Carl was actually elaborating a bit about the number of books MI will publish in 2013, I can understand the reticence and stonewalling. But it certainly will not help your efforts to rehabilitate the Institute's image.The relentless stonewalling that has marked MI policy for the last eight months is not helping your case. To continue to stonewall on this issue feeds into narrative that the Bradford regime has made a conscious decision to abandon apologetics and classic-FARMS publications. 3
Calm Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 Book announcements will be forthcoming as we move forward with a larger web presence (blogging, facebook, twitter, etc.) in the coming months. The Insights newsletter will also be a good source to keep up to date on the goings-on at the Institute, including forthcoming publications as we announce them. At some point soon we'll have the links and info available for everyone. There's a lot of work to do, not as much time for message boards. In the meantime, Carl included our contact number above for anyone interested in talking about things.It will be nice to have something 'concrete' to demonstrate what is intended for the new direction the MI is taking.
Calm Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 One of the many, many weirdities about all of this is that I actually have nothing whatever against that kind of Mormon studies, and that I consider Richard Bushman, Terryl Givens, Armand Mauss, and David Bokovoy friends.And these are the scholars that FAIR has speak at their conferences and whose work FAIR uses in their commentary...as has the various versions of FARMS. I don't understand why a line is being drawn as if there were two completely separate movements going on. 3
Calm Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 Blair, I don't envy you your new job of PR for the MI. Fairly or unfairly, the MI has taken a serious PR hit in the wake of the purge and debacle. Now you've been hired to try to clean up the mess. Good luck. If the MI really has five books in the queue to publish this year, that's fantastic news for MI. Personally, I sincerely hope that MI will continue to publish classic-FARMS books and articles, including apologetics. On the other hand, if MI does have five books in the queue for 2013, I can't possibly imagine why you would not want to make some sort of "forthcoming books" announcement just like every publisher in the world does. "We have five books we will publish this year but we don't want to tell you what they are" is an absurd position to take. Of course, if Carl was actually elaborating a bit about the number of books MI will publish in 2013, I can understand the reticence and stonewalling. But it certainly will not help your efforts to rehabilitate the Institute's image.The relentless stonewalling that has marked MI policy for the last eight months is not helping your case. To continue to stonewall on this issue feeds into narrative that the Bradford regime has made a conscious decision to abandon apologetics and classic-FARMS publications.Perhaps the final contracts have not been signed so that while they are anticipating publishing these books, announcement would be premature. I don't know how their publishing works to know if this is a reasonable speculation. But if so, they must be simpler to get ready for publishing then Sorenson's work due to the time it's taken to get his text ready.
Bill Hamblin Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 Perhaps the final contracts have not been signed so that while they are anticipating publishing these books, announcement would be premature. I don't know how their publishing works to know if this is a reasonable speculation. But if so, they must be simpler to get ready for publishing then Sorenson's work due to the time it's taken to get his text ready.If that is the case, then the books will not be published in 2013. There simply is not enough time.
Bill Hamblin Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 And these are the scholars that FAIR has speak at their conferences and whose work FAIR uses in their commentary...as has the various versions of FARMS. I don't understand why a line is being drawn as if there were two completely separate movements going on.The are not in the least incompatible. Only in the minds of some people.
Kristian Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 Carl Griffin is the Associate Executive Director of the Maxwell Institute. Blair Hodges now also speaks for the Institute in an official capacity. I'm just here for the fun of it - just wanted to make that clear before I jump into this conversation.
Kristian Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 I'm just as interested as the rest of you to find out the precise titles of the 6-7 books that we will publish this year. However, as at least half of them (I suspect) will be METI titles, I find it a little bit disturbing that the editor-in-chief is not a little bit better informed. Come on Dan, tell the group what METI titles will appear this year...
Bill Hamblin Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 Carl Griffin is the Associate Executive Director of the Maxwell Institute. Blair Hodges now also speaks for the Institute in an official capacity. I'm just here for the fun of it - just wanted to make that clear before I jump into this conversation.Hi Kristian. So can you tell us what five books NAMI will produce this year? Can anyone?
Kristian Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 And finally, on the topic of publishing: Since no actual knowledge whatsoever seems to be required to have an opinion, I might venture that although Yale UPs spring catalog is readily available for all the world to see their Fall 2013 catalog is nowhere to be found. Come on Yale UP, no need to be shy, tell us what you're publishing later this year - or is it a secret.
mfbukowski Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 I don't see how badgering Blair is going to help anything.We don't know the situation- the guy has a great new job and he is doing what he needs to do. Who really cares what they publish and when?What is going to change if they do or do not publish this year? What difference does it make in the long run to anyone? Those who got fired got fired- it was a raw deal, but now this just looks like sour grapes whatever the real emotions behind it. It is just unbecoming to be badgering Blair- he is doing the best he can under circumstances we do not understand. 3
Bill Hamblin Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 I don't see how badgering Blair is going to help anything.We don't know the situation- the guy has a great new job and he is doing what he needs to do. Who really cares what they publish and when?What is going to change if they do or do not publish this year? What difference does it make in the long run to anyone? Those who got fired got fired- it was a raw deal, but now this just looks like sour grapes whatever the real emotions behind it. It is just unbecoming to be badgering Blair- he is doing the best he can under circumstances we do not understand.Nobody's badgering Blair. Asking a question is not badgering.I care what they publish and when.
Recommended Posts