I'm going to bow out of this one because we keep getting back to the
same point.
On 24/01/2008, at 11:12 AM, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
> listening to someone telling you what
> happened in her car accident is not the car accident
So, you are saying that there IS this thing called a 'car accident'
You also say:
> your choice has nothing to do with what
> happened, only what you believe happened.
So something happened!
We have a number of social processes (none perfect) that enable us to
sort out what happened in a car accident. And we can shift frames
giving an altogether different description. eg not an accident, but an
unavoidable consequence of late capitalism's dysfunctional social
system. Take your pick.
If I do as you suggest and replace what I said with:
> "is possible for those who
> accept the claim that it can be distinguished from fiction"
We are back to where we began, the distinction between fiction and non-
fiction.
This is just poor argumentation, and unnecessary. Repeating the post
modern mantra about the evils of empiricism etc does not move us
forward. It merely sets up unproductive arguments like this.
The question is much more practical: how should I live and practice my
craft from my position and with the language etc available to me. And
I would assert that the library really is in the world, actually there
whether I describe it or not, round the corner, and is extremely
useful in helping me choose between fiction and non-fiction reading.
As to the epistemological sophistication or otherwise of the
librarian, I have no idea, and so long as she or he keeps the fiction
on one side and the non-fiction on the other side, it doesn't matter!
David
|