david,
if you want to back out of the conversation, fine.
just before you go, please realize the difference between (a) "the
distinction between fiction and non-fiction," and (b) "someone claiming a
piece of writing to read as fiction and something else as non-fiction."
(a) appeals to an objective truth, which implicates access to an
unconceptualized, non-languaged, unobserved reality (as if that difference
existed in the outside world)
(b) invokes someone's judgment, based on her linguistic abilities, reading
experiences, and cultural background, an assertion made by one individual
with whom another linguistically able individual can converse and argue.
if you think (b) reduces to (a), then you ignore the different
epistemologies they respectively imply. then you would not care about the
social games in which they are respectively embedded either. Claiming (a)
implicates the speaker's authority and privileged access to reality,
claiming (b) open the possibility of communication.
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David
Sless
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 9:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
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
|