Re: things on their own?
Charles Bazerman (bazerman who-is-at humanitas.ucsb.edu)
Tue, 15 Jul 1997 09:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
Jay,
I take your points, and certainly agree we are both looking for
ways of talking about both our knowledge of the world and the world
which goes along whether or not we notice it (and are clever enough to try
to accommodate ourselves to it) so that we can then have a better sense
of our own knowledge making and using practices, with the improvement of
those practices as our intent. Further, that frequent errors, with some
untoward consequences come from overstating the meaning of these
knowledge-making/using practices being successful in directing interaction
with the world around us and alternatively, from these knowledge
making/using practices employing human semiotic tools within human
interaction. Further, that epistemology can be pretty empty when it
attempts to assert (or deny) absolute warrant and prescriptive rules for
particular practices; it is more useful for understanding the nature of
historically located and evolving practices. I also agree absolutely the
embeddedness of practices in historical, institutional, practical
arrangements.
One issue, though that I would ask you to consider, and that has
been behind some of the way I have come to formulate things, is the
success in certain formulations in travelling with great value and success
from one set of historical, institutional, practice locations to other
domains far removed, and being continually successful in affording useful
interaction in the new circumstances. Certainly some (perhaps a large
part ) of the answer may come from Pasteur's argument in "Give me a
Laboratory," in that the successful use of the new forumlations require
bringing along a new set of institutional arrangements and practices with
them, and thus the process involves powerful forms of enlistment, if not
colonialism. But I don't think that covers all cases, not does it cover
the full story of the cases in which it does apply. So if we do have
formulations that travel widely (at least in the world of human semiosis,
institutions, and practice), even if they do not capture "things in
themselves" they do capture for many purposes a "human way of knowing"
about these things.
Cheers,
Chuck