non-entry

well - you say you're richer for having read my last entries, but I find that hard to believe... especially if the train of logic was too convoluted for you to follow in parts (and I was rambling - part of the idea of the blog is to jot down thoughts, and true to the original intention, however long some of my entries might have been, none of them have been carefully crafted or edited in any way... I suppose it could be asked what the point is of spewing forth, but I really do think of it as the only substitute available to meeting up and talking over drinks - which brings us back to Plato and the idea of the writing being unable to defend itself...this blog being an instance of dialogue and therefore not what is meant by writing. This does seem to be a running theme and Proust stands as the counter-position to Socrates, basically believing that writing, understood as monologic writing, is the only valid vehicle for thought and expression). Anyway, I did kind of want to defend myself on a couple of points - you said that genes express themselves through the environment and that the division between nature and nurture is bogus - which is precisely what I was saying, and I brought it into play with craft in inspiration, the same way you did, to say that no real separation is possible. Admittedly, I did also say that though no strict separation is possible the dichotomies in question, however tenuous and problematic, are not worthless... both dichotomies deal with the interaction of something innate (as a set of potentialities) and something acquired (which determines how those potentialities unfold)... which isn't really want I want to say - inspiration cannot be called innate. It is, however, outside our control, while craft is something that can be intentionally and methodically cultivated (sort of). And yes, holes can be pokes in all of these statements, and in the post where I talked about this, I started to poke holes in those dichotomies myself.
All this to say that however much nonsense I was spewing, it wasn't nonsensical for the reasons you brought up. The starting point of my argument is being used as the counter to that argument... what I tried ineptly to articulate throughout the whole rest of the post was why I didn't feel like simply dismissing the topic once the problematic nature of the discussion was acknowledged... my reason basically boils down to this: though it isn't an absolutely compelling topic, my thoughts and reading bring me back to it periodically, and when they do, I don't find myself always thinking the same thing on the topic in the same way. It doesn't lead my thoughts to go in circles but to scatter in all directions. I have no solid arguments to build around it, but it does provide scattered reflexions that sometimes end up profitable when thinking or writing about something else entirely. This will sound wishy-washy and vague - it is sort of wishy-washy and vague... but they address inevitable though unanswerable questions about what could be different or what could have been different. Anyone who has ever felt they wanted or needed inspiration when it wouldn't come is bound to start thinking about what allowed them to produce when they were productive, what failed them, how can inspiration be forced to return, and if it is gone, is it gone because of something they did... which maybe doesn't sound like such an inevitable set of questions, except that lack of inspiration is a single instance of a more general set of thoughts... shy people wondering whether they could have been out-going had certain things been different, whether it is still possible to change - in fact, anyone who is dissatisfied with any aspect of their own behavior, who gets frustrated with any form of weak will - people who keep telling themselves they'll stick to a diet and then fail to do so, are bound to whether whether the failure of the will represents something fixed and outside of their control or whether it can be altered - this may seem to move away from 'nurture', except that I see the term as attaching not just to the environment we stand in a passive relation to, but everything that can be in any way shaped, changed or controlled.
ANyway, on the question of the devaluation of the intellect, I have no idea. Certainly, the idea that the writer, thinker or scientist has to be a paid professional is modern. Thinking of the sixteenth century - Montaigne, who wrote the essays in retirement, mainly to distribute among his friends, Marguerite de Navarre, the queen who wrote the Heptameron for the court, in fact... I don't know why I focus on that century or bother with specific examples when they are so numerous... think of all the doctors who have been great writers. Of course making films or certain sorts of scientific advances without financial backing seems unthinkable nowadays, but for books - all you need is a certain amount of leisure, and plenty of people have that. Most people have always been indifferent to culture, and most people always will be. The fetishization of culture by people who see culture as some incomprehensible sacred space that edifies by osmosis is nothing new (the audience for middle brow movies and people who will pick up a classic or visit the museum the way they ride their exercise bikes or take their vitamins, or the pretentious people who wear their culture like a badge of merit). As far as those who have a genuine, meaningful connection with art, or history or philosophy or some science or whatever else, I don't thing they are less numerous or less enthusiastic than at most other times. I run into them everywhere I go.
I don't know if knowledge has been devalued... devalued by who? People might not recognize the importance of certain institutional fixtures for filtering and checking information - it would be nice to have more well paid news people who didn't have to worry about finding sponsors and cutting costs. I am worried about the death of print media. I have no idea just how much the position of academics has changed - I don't know what it was like before. I generally don't feel comfortable trying to say anything at all on subjects of this sort... I don't know if society is doomed. I get more and more amazed at how consistently badly the government is run - which may seem off topic, but I really feel that if we collapse culturally it will be because of failed institutions and political decisions. I don't feel that individuals have necessarily stopped caring about information, or thought (though as a society we are undoubtedly less and less disciplined individually as well as collectively). It is just important that the schools be in good shape and the overall quality of life not decline too drastically.
I'm a horrible trend spotter by the way - when the movie Titanic came out, and then again when that video game rock band came out, I remember thinking, "they'll lose a fortune - who the hell would be interested in that?"