Subject: Re: PKF: Would Feyerabend have defended Wittgenstein and WhorfagainstChomsk...
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 06:57:42 +0200


> Feyerabend wrote a response to his critics, shortly after the publication
> of the first edition of Against Method, entitled 'Conversations with
> Illiterates.'  Presumably, the reasons why Feyerabend supposed that his
> critics were illiterate are familiar to most of the people on this list,
> so I won't go into them in any great detail.
>
> However, this interpretation of Chomsky exemplifies most of them.
That is the feelling I got.

> If their author could explain his preference for 'his kind of narrative'
> in a little more depth, it might help illuminate matters for me a bit.
Yes:

What I mean is that in a narrative a story, a method of understanding, is
given to a series of events. When events happen on the ground, before
a narrative on them takes place, they are largely truth-functional, i.e.
it is judgeable just what has taken place prior to a narrative explanation,
i.e
a meaning, given to them. Did Soldier A kill Soldier B: Yes or No,
exclusively. That is perhaps the only place where tuth-functions
are wholly valid (something I have learned from trying to get a grip on
"relativism" only recently).
As human beings we need meaning however, so we narrate
what we have experienced, i.e. those truth functions. The same happens in
wars,
so governments and the media begin to form narrations presumably for our
consumption, if they did not and we heard of the fact that Soldier A killed
Soldier B (and B was American!), we would want meaning, a narrartive¨,
and we would make one for ourselves if we didnt get one from outside.

This happened all throughout the NATO action. When I post something
like the first posting where the first sentence was "Chomsky has called
Wittgenstein
a language-parasite. Perhaps he is talking about himself?" the stage is
already
set for an emotional spin of narration. I try to make them as close to the
way I
can group disparate but nonetheless related entities (people, events, ideas,
processes),
and I want them to logically and aesthetically reflect my belief system
through an experimental form, a story -
I believe Wittgenstein did much thing, remember
that von Wright considered him one of the great German writers in
competition
with Goethe especially in von Wright´s views. I think there is credence to
this.
(I claim no such thing for myself, but find the method of explication
extremely
enjoyable and satisfying). I think it is a matter of a certain style and
historical
outlook, I emphasise history - look at all of the human-imposed epistemes
we place on actual events, and we come up with narratives, or history.

I believe it is a good thing to write from this view, because what it will
do is this: when
people like Daedalus see that the narrative is not wholly accurate, they
will try
to get closer to those things which are really true. That is presumably why
he
insisted on it for the benefit ALL members of the list. When NATO narrates
its war, it provokes the same reactions. (I thought I had made that quite
clear before he got Daedalus got really angry.) I would say that it was an
experiment
which NATO wished to learn from, and did because of such reactions -
unfortunately
I cannot say that I am happy about their experiment, but that is another
matter.



> **********************************************************************
> Contributions: mailto:feyerabend-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Commands: mailto:majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Requests: mailto:feyerabend-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu

**********************************************************************
Contributions: mailto:feyerabend-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: mailto:majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: mailto:feyerabend-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu