I recall that heretofore I had an argument with you about what you and I
might each define as reality there being no common realities only subjective
ones.
Reality is based and can only be based on perception therefore a blind
persons reality is necessarily different from a sighted one. If I have a
significantly different cognitive framework to you then my reality and yours
cannot be readily correlated.
Let us look for instance at subjective levels of pain, of hearing of emotion
even. Time again, I doubt if everybody has the same experience of the
passing of time of concepts of past and of future.
It is not surprising then that loss is subjective too, You cannot lose what
you have never had, that I regard as a reality at least an uncontestable
statement. You can however subjectively covet certain faculties you do not
have but you percieve others to have supposing that you have been inculcated
in a culture that valuse them. This is called relative deprivation.
If however you reject these values or come to an understanding whereby
internally they have no great significance for you, then you can come to an
accomodation and lern to value what you have not what you do not.
It is not a disabled phenomena either, for there are many out there who see
someone with a better job, a bigger car, better looks (however that is
defined) or more sporting prowess.
I too have physical limitations on what I can do and it can be frustrating
when you are on your own and no-one is there to do it for you. Nonetheless
it is not going to change no matter what I think about it.
I am not sure that language is as innate to the human species as chomsky
asserts, at least not the high level metaphorical language we are using here
Reserch has moved on.
The words we use beyond the simple are defined by our culture, our class, by
so many other factors, words are not absoulute descriptors of any objective
reality. Look behind almost any word and you will see levels of extension
and metaphor. Any one who makes a study of the English language will be
aware that we no longer speak the English of Chaucers time, words have
changed there meanings to meet different needs of communication. To
negotiate changing "realities"
"bio" "medical" these are just words, having a lifetime, an origin and a
metamorphosis. As society changes there connotations change.
I can say the word real, but what does it signify, what does it mean. If I
chose to call the sun a rock that does not make it equivalent to a rock, it
does not change the essential nature of the sun but it changes the way I
think about it.
I am not sure there is any function in debating with you as we clearly
occupy different realities.
Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Michael Morgan
> Sent: 10 February 2002 17:27
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: disability as loss
>
>
> No I simply meant any sensible definition of disability must be
> grounded in
> physical reality. The word disability - DIS-ABILITY - means lack
> or loss of
> physical or mental ability. The term itself is inherently negative because
> the reality is. It is conceived as functional loss following
> disease, injury
> etc - the original impairment . At its simplest it states some obvious
> bio-medical facts: blind people canšt see, deaf people canšt hear, spinal
> injured people canšt walk, etc. This is 'loss' at a physical level and
> doesn't necessarily have anything to do with psychological loss which some
> list-members seem to think.
>
> Of course 'disability' means a lot more than just the physical -
> there is a
> social dimension, a psychological dimension, sexual dimension et
> al. But it
> must refer in a primary sense to an objectively measurable
> physical reality,
> otherwise we're lost. Disability is indeed a complex phenomenon
> which defies
> any simplistic definition but it must be grounded in reality.
>
> My apologies to Larry A. I had the weird idea this list was for
> professionals who enjoyed a sharp discussion. None though to
> Victoria L who
> needed someone to puncture her cosy assumptions.
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
> Michael Morgan
>
> ________________End of message______________________
>
> Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
> are now located at:
>
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>
> You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
>
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|