ok, before this escalates into some absurd debate,
i was commenting on the questions about YE's references for legitimacy of
thought,
this "history" of "psychology" and ch4 in general.
the assumption that there is an international agreement on authorities of
knowledge is, and this all i meant, particularly American.
this is what the below remark is referring to - not neurology, or
universal cognition theories independent of culture or history, just,
academic politics, citations of authority,
the police of information, and so on.
diane
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu writes:
>- interesting to note the difficulties and discomforts from American
>readers of chapter four -
>questions about "who" is the authority citation for making statements, and
>so on.
>
>as we've discussed before,
>cultures privilege different authorities, so that Australian scholars
>refer to authorities that might not be recognized in the USA,
>just as with England, Irish, Welsh, Swedish, Norwegian, German, Italian,
>and so on and so on.
>
>the assumption of a universal authority in matters of cultural authority
>is
>kind of contradictory, 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 - 01:01:21 PDT