I still don't know how to value what you say.
You say:
> if non-fiction means describing the world as is -- unframed by the
> language used to
> describe it and without acknowledging its conceptualization by your
> nervous
> system
But does non-fiction mean this in any context in which we normally use
the term? Moreover how can I 'describe' an 'it' if there is no 'it' to
which I have access, and which I can describe?
This seems to me like playing with language and abstractions, taking
the word 'non-fiction' out of its normal context and then doing things
with it that make it seem something else. I think you are doing the
same with the words 'describe', 'it', and 'conceptualisation'. I'm
prepared to go so far as to say that my 'nervous system' does not
conceptualise anything. Only people and aliens can conceptualise. You
are talking across quite different contexts of language use.
I go back to the library example. I can tell you without controversy
that, irrespective of whatever my nervous system might be doing, I
KNOW the library is in the world—just round the corner in fact—and
that I know roughly what sort of books I will find in the fiction and
non-fiction sections. This is the way we talk about these things IN
LANGUAGE, and get on with things in the world.
Perhaps it would be better to make the distinction you want to make in
some other way. BTW, as you know, I too am a constructionist!
David
--
|