 |
 |
Following Leonard's suggestion below, I think that the original question (Mike's) can find inspiring lines of analysis in all sorts of ways - taxonomic aspects are certainly key to it, literary studies and their use of comparative methods can also be a source of thought, perhaps the comparative stuff in anthropology can be revealing, etc. If taken to the ultimate grounds of philosophical contemplation however the question may become a bit paralysing in itself in that it seems, to me (but am not very sure I understand things very well), that it might well end up back on grounds of 'epistemological tribulation' etc: what do we know? What can we know? What is there? Etc. (see Heidegger's 'Concept of Ground'). Anyway, it is very, very interesting to have a 'little' question like that thrown in every now and again - thanks, Mike and everybody else. Best Bogdan _________________________________ Dr Bogdan Costea Dpt of Organisation, Work and Technology Lancaster University Management School Lancaster LA1 4YX, UK -----Original Message----- From: Critical Perspectives on Work, Management and Organization [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Leonard Holmes Sent: 29 October 2004 00:05 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: An Explanation-Why We Compare? I'd recommend 'Sorting things out: classification and its consequences', by Geoffrey Bowker and Susan Leigh Star - originally published 1999 by MIT Press, paperback version pub. 2000. ISBN 0-262-52295-0 Leonard Holmes At 08:48 27/10/2004 +0930, you wrote: >Colleagues - I am looking for some references to a theory of comparison - an >explanation why we compare things as knowledge creation. For example, to >measure the length of something is to compare it to a standard; to question >people can be seen as comparing their experiences. I am aware of comparative >theories in history, sociology, religion etc, and am more interested in a >philosophical (clarifying concepts) or sociological explanation than a strong >cognitive science one. Am I making sense - any ideas? > >Regards and thanks, > >Mike Metcalfe > >