Hi, Eric -- I admit that I haven't read the literature that Keith and Jay
refer to, so I can't comment on the substance of their arguments/
differences. I was searching the web for an argument I remembered between
Bateson & Margaret Meade (about whether to leave the camera stationary for
research or to shoot pictures more purposively -- arguably also relevant to
the discussion) & found the quote I posted to xmca right before reading
xmca, so it just seemed apropos.
Judy
-----Original Message-----
From: MnFamilyMan@aol.com [mailto:MnFamilyMan@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 8:10 AM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Bateson
Judith;
I agree that Bateson has much to say regarding how it is we become what it
is we become. In that same direction I have been thinking that this debate
between empiricism and a dialectic is somewhat of a semantic debate. Dewey
didn't accept the dialectic but he did write about experience and nature,
James wrote about the object and subject. These empiricists spoke about the
principles that the dialectic speaks to they just called it something else.
I know that it is not as simple as agreeing on verbage but reality IS
reality we may just not truely understand WHAT reality is yet.
eric
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 27 2002 - 08:02:50 PDT