Hi all,

Regards to you all.  I've been out of circulation for a while and just reading
through the debates I am struck by your statement Je Kan where:

"I feel it is this classic concept of ownership of knowing and knowledge
which seems to be linked with a deep human desire to feel that by solidifying
knowledge into fact . The world we construct is more controllable, understandable
and repeatable."

For me this opens an interesting area of debate.  In particular I am thinking
of these questions.

"Who is claiming to know?"

The concept of ownership of knowledge implies - someone who owns the knowledge.
 I think historically there are plenty of examples of someone making a claim
to know, which in turn deprives someone else of the space to speak, or make
their own claim to know. As Gayati Chakravorty Spivak indicates in her Subaltern
studies.  There is a political aspect to having a voice.  I can see where
your coming from Je Kan on this - making a claim to knowledge is putting
one in a position of making decisions on how knowledge should be used.  Making
a claim to know is always in some way political.  

First you have a voice - in marxist terms, you have access to a means of
production that others may not have.

Secondly, you have a responsibility in how you use that voice.

These are very profound responsibilities.

Where you say:

"Perhaps I am suggesting that my contribution is the understanding of the
honesty of not knowing. I can no longer subscribe to the the universe of
facts when so much is not known."

This is a personal and a political statement as it is saying that claims
to know previously made, that lead to 'facts' are not valid for you.  I think
I am trying to say that making a claim 'I dont know' can be both a valid
claim to know and it is also a statement of distrust of other claims to knowledge.
 Arundhati Roy recently said that she couldnt figure out why Noam Chomsky
books are so long....then it dawned on her that the size of the machine he
is challenging is so big, so all encompassing that he needs to pull out all
the stops to challenge it. Sometimes it can take a long time to try to prove
(even to oneself) that 'I dont know,' at least as long as it can take to
try to prove 'I know' - Interestingly trying to prove that you dont know
- or can test and disprove a theory is a valid scientific approach!  As Lincoln
and Guba point out, all paradigms are 'loose coupled' or ambiguous!

I know that you are referring to a personal opinion, but it is also a political
one and a challenge to people who view knowledge that:

"is more controllable, understandable and repeatable."

Best wishes!
Darragh