Mairead wrote:
> How can it
>not matter, all knowledge being built on categories? They're what makes
>the in and out.
I would rather knowledge was built on dynamic relationships, which seem
less static than Aristotlean boxes and (to me) closer to actualities.
The instabilities and inherent transformative qualities of relationships
aren't built into traditional categorical knowledge, or, rather, are
glossed. Rather than a grid laid on top of something, a closer and
specific attention to whatever or however it is and behaves. That's
where the complex sciences are quite interesting, in how they pay
attention to phenomena - turbulence, organic growth, etc - which have
been sidelined by other knowledges; or contemporary approaches to
neurology, which incorporate emotions and feelings as subjects of
investigation and have to incorporate more complex ideas of the studying
subject, therefore... I mean, categories can hardly be regarded as
absolute, or as the only means of knowing.
Best
Alison
|