you also know that across many high school and undergraduate curricula these are the norm... there is little to nothing primary about most textbooks nor most surveys of disciplinary subfields... perhaps literature is different than other fields and summary/survey/introductory books are utterly original?
It is one thing to read about something and another to read a representative sample of the thing itself. This is not an argument for some kind of clear cut purity parallel to basic vs. applied research or original vs. derivative scholarship, it is an acknowledgement of the empirically verifiable state of most of education.
A
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> I can't believe that Joanna actually believes this. "Original sourace"
> doesn't name anything. It is almost impossible to find a text which is not,
> at its core, a reference to other texts. Anyone's education (and "real
> education" is another empty metaphysical notion) begins with tertiary or
> quaternary or 10th from the mythical source text that points your way to
> (miscalled) "original sources," which you then read through the blurred
> spectacles of of others.
>
> Carroil
>
>
>
> On 5/11/2011 1:12 PM, Chuck Grimes wrote:
>
>> Yes, I would say my real education began when I started reading original
>> sources.
>>
>> Joanna
>
>