|
|
clarification of earlier post
Daniel A. Foss (DFOSS@CCVM.SUNYSB.EDU)
Tue, 11 Jan 1994 23:57:46 EST
1. I omitted to say, "an orgy of explanation in the explanation industry
is vaguely analogous to an obsession induced by an advertiser who gets
the viewer's or reader's signification system to tickle itself."
Sorry.
2. I'm really serious about this, since it gives a clue to the nature of
the signification system being tickled which reproduces the postmodernism
debate:
Why was it not *bizarre* for Bob Graber to be asked about his literary
tastes? Why did he feel it incumbent upon him to answer? Suppose, in a
dispute about social science epistemology and method, one of the parties
was asked about stamp collecting. Would not that be considered bizarre?
Would the espousal of the contrary position by a woman or a person of color
have impaired Bob Graber's ability to uphold his? Anglophone-Canadianism (*)
is clearly not relevant, but what of a person of the opposite language?
I want it plainly understood that, for reasons previously stated, none
the preceding will prove knowledge claims about postmodernism, but will,
upon reflection by the reader, clarify what is socially acceptable and
contextualized about a knowledge claim.
Daniel A. Foss
(*) 1. Canadian citizenship. 2. A belief or doctrine to the effect that
Canada exists or is somehow free of control by a foreign power.
|