Paul, Kevin, others:
To haul this fish of history up onto the shore -- when we look at
"history," don't we see that it's made of language? So we can look at it
through Yrjo's triangle -- language being the tool, the rules, the
community, etc..?
Helena
Kevin Rocap wrote:
> Dear Paul,
>
> I'm not sure I follow.
>
> What occurence, event, instance that can be talked about does not
> involve a conscious subject?
>
> If you mean when you put "walking the dog" in parentheses that the
> abstract action of "walking the dog" is not history, that seems
> self-evident.
>
> Or if you mean that any hypothetical structure or fiction is not
> historical (that becomes a little trickier, but I'll "suspend disbelief"
> - though I'm not sure what to do with the history of ideas or a history
> of concepts).
>
> But surely walking any particular dog is an historical event for any
> conscious participant, witness or person who hears/learns about it (?).
> No? What am I missing? Is there a hierarcy of events that can count as
> history? Who decides?
>
> Sorry to be unclear.
>
> In Peace,
> K.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 01 2002 - 01:00:20 PST