Generic Considerations

Jason Ingram · 24 Apr 2003, 00:33 · from urth-v0304.mbox · original

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: Jason Ingram <j_ingram at mac.com>
Subject: Re: (urth) Generic Considerations
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 17:33:36 -0700
Message-ID: <urth-v0304-3302 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0304/3302.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Blattid raises some good points.  I'll try to address one.

Blattid:
> H'mmm. At this point I have to ask the questions I've been unasking
> throughout this discussion. I don't like these questions, I suspect
> them of being inherently unanswerable. But:
>
> Correspondence with ... what?
>
> And what does "correspond" mean in this context?
>
> Unless and until someone answers those questions, which I don't
> see anyone doing real soon, any "correspondence with reality test"
> seems to me not only misleading, but meaningless.

If I say that Texas is smaller than Rhode Island, my statement doesn't,=20
on face, correspond with reality.  Similarly, stating that water boils=20
at 30 degrees Centigrade doesn't correspond with reality.  This leaves=20
unanswered the question of what "reality" is.

I think it's meaningful, useful, and often necessary to talk about=20
historical accuracy even though I would argue that perspective and a=20
host of other factors tend to make common-sense discussions of=20
"objective facts" misleading, if not meaningless.  Different levels of=20
analysis: objectivity is a myth, but I don't want news reporters to be=20
excessively biased.

The bogeyman of positivism lurks in the background, along with early=20
attempts to come up with a neutral language that could allow=20
unambiguous communication.  The ideal was to develop a language with a=20
one-to-one correspondence between words and things.  Possibly a=20
straw-dog.

I think I lean closer towards a view of reality as a construction than=20
I do towards a notion that there is a really real reality out there,=20
even if we can't attain true knowledge of it (Kant's approach).   So,=20
I'm not partial to using "correspondence with reality" as a framework=20
for cataloguing writing.  Prism/lens, I suppose.

I'll defer discussion of how different conceptions of "reality" might=20
be more or less problematic.  One small reason I like Wolfe so much is=20
that he leaves plenty of space open for interpretation, and yet also=20
does a very good job of crafting a naturalistic style.  Many=20
protagonists are also authors, who disseminate their work across the=20
universe.  Their styles differ, and are appropriate to the situation. =20
Horn conceals some information from the reader because his papers might=20
be read by enemies, for instance.

Sepia

--=20

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net