Teena,
The word "radical" does not mean that a concept is problematic. I
agree that the idea that "the world we know is fiction" is
problematic to me, but labeling it radical uses a common meaning of
the word.
--snip--
3 a : marked by a considerable departure from the usual or
traditional : EXTREME b : tending or disposed to make extreme changes
in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions
[from Merriam-Webster's]
--snip--
This is not pejorative nor does it necessarily describe problems. I
do have problems with the notions that all writing is fiction or the
world we know is fiction. Nevertheless, I use the word radical in its
dictionary sense to describe a dramatic and bold departure from
common epistemology and ontology.
Your decision to tell me what I think and why I think it brings an
unpleasant tone to the conversation. I've stated a difference of
opinion in a conversation on philosophies of science -- possibilities
if you will. I have disagreed. I have not claimed to know your
thoughts, nor have I attributed motives to you as the reason for your
assertions.
Your rhetoric does not suggest a willingness to look for
possibilities. You make a truth claim about me in the "is" form.
While you argue that all writing is fiction, you write as though you
know the truth.
Attributing motive to my views transforms the nature of the
conversation. It is time for me to withdraw from this thread.
Cheers indeed.
Ken
>And that is why you think the idea is radical Ken, because it is
>problematic to you. And looking for definitive 'answers' is your way
>of dealing with the problem. So you select from what has gone before
>and rhetorically construct your story. From my standpoint, I am
>looking for possibilities, so the idea does not seem radical to me.
>
>cheers, teena
--
Ken Friedman
Professor
Dean, Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
|