>Hi Tom, and others
re
>"... Sorry, I can't agree with you about truth. I don't think truth is
relative. There is such a thing as universal truth..."
I have been very interested in the discussion about this because the
idea of universal truth or not has been bothering me - not so much as
is it one or the other, but now to present discusson that makes the
idea into a binary and, as such, another Euro/Western way of seeing.
How about ...at the moment, we use established somethings
(ideologies?, paradigms?, discourses even?) as 'creative' (in even
the most concrete sense) analytical tools, however these positions
reiterate 'known' universes, because they come from 'known universe'
ways of thinking.
How do we re-think these essentialist assumptions and, further, act
on the process of this rethink?
Would it be useful to start from the idea that all that is
potentially knowable is present? Just
that we only see minute fractions of a/the potentially knowable, that
is already there?
Yet does this idea just re-iterate a unity of universe position?
Maybe it is not so much even to question if there is either a unified
(known) universe or there is not as the ontological question, but that we
cannot presently see the all, and probably never will be able to,
being human. But we can become more sophisticated in the conceptual
tools we have to recognise the potential for bits of it?
Yet I am still uncomfortable with this latter notion, because it can
reintroduces the idea of finite, and we are back to knowable as
universal rather than a conceptual tool.
Any thoughts would be appreciated
...and great to have more of an idea of what the terms ontological,
epistemological and metaphysical might mean.
Cheers Carol
________________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.
|