Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!jarthur!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!pacbell!well!fico2!everexn!karen
From: karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: hum.* vs rec.arts.* and rec.music.*
Message-ID: <1990Feb22.225139.9833@everexn.uucp>
Date: 22 Feb 90 22:51:39 GMT
References: <1990Feb14.230808.4556@cs.rochester.edu> <92S14F1xds13@ficc.uu.net>
Organization: Everex Systems, Inc.
Lines: 53

peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:

>If the intent is to create a hierarcy that includes at least part of
>rec.arts.*, then I submit that the name "arts.*" is no less appropriate
>than "humanities.*", not to mention being shorter, and certainly better
>than such nauseating abbreviations as "hum.*".

The problem with "arts" is that most people (including myself) will
relate "arts" to The Arts, such as painting and sculpture and music, et
al.  

Maybe it would be a good idea to decide exactly what we want a new
hierarchy (or, hierarchies) to encompass.  That might help us to
categorize and come up with a name.  I agree with the posters who have
suggested that any hierarchical divisions go along the lines of the
departments at universities; most of us can relate to that kind of
classification.  

I think that whatever we decide on, some people will think that the
classifications or divisions are too broad, and others will complain
that they're too narrow, and still others will say the divisions group
newsgroups together in ridiculous ways.

My original complaint, which sort of got the idea for a humanities
hierarchy going, was that it seemed to me that some of the sciences that
are not natural sciences, not being welcome (or some say appropriate) in
sci, got dumped into other inappropriate hierarchies, such as talk.  The
sciences that I had in mind were those such as philosophy, psychology,
sociology, etc.  Other people may have other ideas about what kinds of 
things belong in what hierarchies; this is what I had in mind.  Just a 
nice little place for the more "subjective" sciences.   

I've been so busy that I haven't had time to get a college catalog and
see how things are laid out; when I went to graduate school, it was a
professional school that offered a few different degrees, and it's been
so long since I've been an undergraduate that I don't remember how
things are arranged in a liberal arts setting.  Maybe someone could
enlighten us, or I may yet get around to it myself.

>I think a "hum.*" hierarchy should not absorb anything from rec.arts.*,
>but an "arts.*" hierarchy should.

I agree with this last statement.  A hum hierarchy should not absorb
anything from rec.  Recreation is about fun, enjoyment, hobbies.  The 
new hierarchy (as I envision it) is going to be about study, science, 
conceptualization.  

Karen
-- 
   Karen Valentino  <>  Everex North (Everex Systems)  <>  Sebastopol, CA
       karen@everexn.uu.net      ..{apple, well}!fico2!everexn!karen
    "Clearly, the idea of human beings as units remains at war with the
     notion of the interdependence of all things." -- Salvador Minuchin