Subject: Re: Paradigms Lost Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 10:27:53 PST er, um <raising a shy hand in the back of the class> what about donna harraway's notion of "situated knowleges"? she is certainly a postmodernist, but doesn't at all believe "therefore everything is relative." i don't have it handy now, but if you're interested in pursuing this, i'd highly recommend her book _simians, cyborgs, and women: the reinvention of nature_. she does address this issue, if not in an essay with "situated knowleges" in the title, then certainly in passim. i don't think postmodernism and "everything's relative" need go hand in hand, but it certainly seems an oft and easily made argument advanced by "anti-postmodernists." cheers, markisha >Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 09:55:15 -0500 >From: Ed Atkeson <edatkeson-AT-earthlink.net> >To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu >Subject: Re: Paradigms Lost >Reply-To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > ><Postmodernism is no-fault, there is no up or down, <right or wrong, >it's all relative. I can become a devout Catholic because I like the >music. I can throw myself into a career not because I think I'm doing >good, or contributing, or saving the world, but because I think it's >simply cool. I can even devote my life to something that I think is >funny or incongruous, isn't this the "ironic immersion" I hear about? > < Out on a limb, appreciate any comments, Ed Atkeson > >ES >>>I hope Ed won't take offense at this, but, Judy, this is exactly >the view of the postmodern that I am protesting. From paradigms to the >view that everything is relative is a relatively short step.... Science >is just paradigms, i.e. social construction ...therefore everything is >relative...we make it all up as we go along (well, yes and no) >------------------ >Somehow, science seems different. It's that nailed-down "subset of >learning," verifiable facts about our environment. It's hard isn't it? >Won't we always be building on it, or like you say, stubbing our toe? >There's the anthropic principle, and the knowledge that we can't analyze >our own system very well (we're running applications). So our perception >is limited, looking forward to more objective breakthroughs, but >"Science is just paradigms and social constructions?" Are important >thinkers saying this? > >thanks, Ed Atkeson > > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005