Diane,
You wrote,
>
> all i would offer here is the process of translation is what shapes
> whatever "passes" for knowledge - however the translation takes place,
> whether in language-words-images-activity-and so on, all are projections
> that translation an embodied experience into an externalized artifact,
> what might be called "objectivity" in some contexts.
> there is no such thing as "objectivity" of course, but there can be
> shared truths - poverty exists, that reads like an objective statement of
> reality
> and is a material existence for more than two-thirds of the world,
> but it is not "objective" so much as a truth that is partial, and shared
> by some,
> rejected by others.
>
> everything is translation. the trick is to learn as many languages genres
> discourses and ideologies as possible.
Two questions:
1. What provides the basis for translation? How is it even possible if
there isn't something independent of the language to which the translation
can be compared? What do you call this "thing", this frame of reference?
How is it accessed?
2. Have you read Ishmael?? The voice of Mother Culture whispering its
lies? There the objectivity comes quite simply as extinction. Human
practice that fails to conform to the independent structures, the ecological
parameters of the material world (e.g., the Anasazi, the lowland Maya, the
20th century global civilization?) quite simply autodestructs--no gas in the
tank, no drive-- that's pretty objective and doesn't admit of regionally
applicable truths except in "make-believe". But then in make believe there
is no real (objective) tea in the tiny cups anyway, is there? Or maybe we
are just like the children who play "tea party": after we finish playing our
parents (gods/goddesses) will call us into the kitchen and give us lunch.
That'd be nice, I guess . . .
Paul H. Dillon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 01 2000 - 01:00:29 PDT