klaus
I remain as confused as ever. Your description of the 'reality' of the
middle east seems to conform *exactly* to your three objections to ontology.
> it is precidely (sic) because each holds on to their construction of how "the
world is" and these constructions happen to be incommensurable that the
conflict goes on until one ontology succeeds.
In the above sentence you seem to be positing a higher order (unauthored)
ontology which perports to describe how reality realy realy is, regardless
of what anyone in the middle east might claim "the world is".
To quote your good self:
> my problem with such claims are that
> (1) they are not supported by (my) experiences
Having lived in the middle east for part of my life, I can quite comfortably
come to a view that the conflict has little to do with ontologies, but that
is just my view.
You then go on to offer a 'solution' to the middle east 'problem'
> if both would realize the consructedness of their ontology,
> there could be chance for resolving the mutual devastation.
I suspect that such an approach could further errode any residual
trust--again to use your own words--, such actions:
> (2) have often devastating social implications
You then assert (unauthored and without admiting the constructed nature of
your ontology) an ontological 'truth' about the role of metaphysical
constructions:
> the problem is not the reality of everyday practices of living but the
> (metaphysical) construction of "who we are and how others fit in (our)
> reality" -- without making a space for the realities of others.
I am always worried by such claims because--once again to use your own
words:
> (3) by not recognizing that they are mere claims, they deny their
> proponents' accountability and prevent dialogue.
So, I remain confused. Ken's useful gloss on etymology and current usage
clarifies current metaphorical applications of the term ontology, but do not
help with my confusion.
> if ontology "is how the world is" -- and you find many seekers of such
> certainties -- then ontology can easily become a platform of oppression.
I couldn't agree more.
>
> maybe we need another word for the specification of a world that is
> community specific, time bound and always revisable, but taken for granted
> merely for justifying a particular design.
This is the world I live and work in. Could it be otherwise? Perhaps we
should leave it at that.
David
--
Professor David Sless
BA MSc FRSA
Co-Chair Information Design Association
Senior Research Fellow Coventry University
Director
Communication Research Institute of Australia
** helping people communicate with people **
PO Box 398 Hawker
ACT 2614 Australia
Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
phone: +61 (0)2 6259 8671
fax: +61 (0)2 6259 8672
web: http://www.communication.org.au
|