xmca@weber.ucsd.edu writes:
> > the assumption of a universal authority in matters of cultural
>authority
>is
>> kind of contradictory, isn't it?
>
>presupposes that cultures represent ontologically distinct spheres and
>that
>there can be no knowledge of culture but only knowledge within specific
>cultures.
>
>But there is no evidence for this and, to the contrary, evidence against
>it
>unfolds daily before our eyes in various processes of globalization of
>culture and has always occured whereveer cultures have met. Ultimate
>absolute translatability, the poet's dilemna, is not at issue here. I
>believe Engels said this well when he wrote:
uh-huh, yes, sure, but doesn't language frame perception, and so isn't it
possible that those who desire universals are better able to articulate
their possibility, without
actually establishing a universal ? internationally, that is, the desire
for universals that might conform to particular Western ideals represent a
particular history of literature that refers to particular perceptions,
beliefs, ideologies, values, institutions, and so on.
i was only suggesting that LBE might be understood in its particular
cultural reference,
and frankly, yes, i'd say there are no universal ontological spheres,
but rather particular cultural spheres within which ontological references
can be gleaned by those who need ontological references. ...
of course, some cultures don't need those, so... it is relative, isn't it?
diane
"If you'll excuse me now, I'd like to be alone with my sandwich."
Homer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 01 2001 - 01:01:19 PDT