Notes to Pages 2–4 Introduction
NOTES Notes to pages 2–4 Introduction 1. For a suggestive discussion of similar topics, see Clifford Geertz, Available Light: Anthropological Reflections on Philosophical Topics (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2000, rpt. 2001), 143–59. Geertz himself has had much of relevance to say in The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays (New York: Basic Books [1973]). On the richness and on the debate of the nature of science, see, for instance, Bruno Latour, Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987); Richard Rorty, Philosophical Papers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991). On subjectivity and objec- tivity in neurology, see Israel Rosenfeld, The Strange, Familiar and Forgotten: An Anatomy of Consciousness (New York: Knopf, 1992), a work whose title might invite comparison to Robert Burton, Anatomy of Melancholy (London, 1621) and Northrop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957, rpt. 1973). 2. In this paragraph I am drawing on the Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, 1989. More particularly, the etymology of “read” is as follows: “[Comm. Teut.: OE. raédan ϭ OFris. reda using, OS. radan (MLG. raden, MDu. and Du. raden), OHG. ratan (MHG. raten, G. raten, rathen), ON. ráqa (Sw. råda, Da. raade), Goth. -redan: OTeut. *ra[d¯an, prob. related to OIr. im- rádim to deliberate, consider, OSl. raditi to take thought, attend to, Skr. radh- to succeed, accomplish, etc.” 3. Geertz, Available Light, 16. 4. Geertz, Available Light, 16. 5. Brecht on Theatre, trans. John Willett (New York, 1964), 15. 6. Brecht on Theatre, 34. 7. See Bertolt Brecht, Vesuche, 12 (Berlin, 1958).
[Show full text]