but isn't there _always_ a narritive voice, always responding to an
already existing narrative?
as i recall from _the life of the buddha_, the blind persons and the
elephant parable was told to demonstrate the illusory nature of reality.
and i wondered about the details that weren't given in the parable.
how were so many blind people collected and brought before this creature?
was it an experiment?
were they aware of that?
who interviewed them after their encounter with the elephant? why? what
were their motives in analyzing and publishing the data?
did they have the opportunity to speak with each other afterwards? or
during the encounter? did they bump into each other as they felt the
elephant? how did they distinguish a fellow feeler from the creature? who
trained the elephant to stand still and put up with this treatment?
if i shift the context to a school for the blind and suggest that the
elephant is the director, or their doctor, or the school itself, then
these questions take on different shades of meaning.
whose reality? and why?
"the alternative to relativism is not totalization and single vision,
which is always finally the unmarked category whose power depends on
systematic narrowing and obscuring. The alternative to relativism is
partial, locatable, critical knowledges sustaining the possibility of webs
of connections called solidarity in politics and shared conversation in
epistemology."
p. 191 in _simians, cyborgs, and women: the reinvention of nature_ by
donna haraway
kathie
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
start all over.
start all over.
we need to make new symbols,
make new signs,
make a new language,
with these we'll redefine the world
and start all over.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^tracy chapman:new beginning
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Katherine_Goff who-is-at ceo.cudenver.edu
http://ceo.cudenver.edu/~katherine_goff/index.html