I think Eva meant this to go to the list and not just
to me personally.... Since she said this was
meant for the list, I've appended the response I
sent to her....
\brad mccormick
Eva Durant wrote:
>
> > Durant wrote:
> > >
> > > > In a world of pure self-interest, can there be any paradigms of
> > > > communication?
> > > >
> >
>
> I did not write any such thing, I responded to it
> in a negative sense.
>
> >
> > Those who do not reflectively cultivate their
> > paradigms may imagine they live in the
> > paradigm free zome of the obvious (or of
> > "hard facts", etc.), but they're only unwittingly
> > *being lived by* some socially conditioned
> > paradigm or other. As the philosopher
> > of physics Norwood Hanson once said (more
> > or less...) the only paradigm-free experience he
> > ever had was when his airplane crashed and he
> > was momentarily in a total daze.
> >
>
> The word "paradigm" represents post-modernist/relativist
> claptrap to me. Sorry. "Idea" seems a perfectly
> good word to me, easier to pronounce and spell
> for us sixpacks. And the less fuzzier, the better, please...
>
> Eva
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------- My response follows:
Subject:
Re: The X Files ("deus ex machina" excuses)
Date:
Tue, 01 Sep 1998 07:35:45 -0400
From:
"Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization:
AbiCo. <![%THINK;[SGML]]>
To:
Eva Durant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References:
1
Eva Durant wrote:
>
> > Durant wrote:
> > >
> > > > In a world of pure self-interest, can there be any paradigms of
> > > > communication?
> > > >
> >
>
> I did not write any such thing, I responded to it
> in a negative sense.
As often, I find it hard to determine who said what in
these forums.
On the other hand, I am finding it difficult to
"classify" "where you're coming from". I seem to
think you are politically "left". But then
you also seem(?) to take a "naively realist"
stance. I am confused (not that that is highly important
to me, or that my confusion on the issue should
be a *big deal* to you, but I *am* confused about
your position????)
>
> >
> > Those who do not reflectively cultivate their
> > paradigms may imagine they live in the
> > paradigm free zome of the obvious (or of
> > "hard facts", etc.), but they're only unwittingly
> > *being lived by* some socially conditioned
> > paradigm or other. As the philosopher
> > of physics Norwood Hanson once said (more
> > or less...) the only paradigm-free experience he
> > ever had was when his airplane crashed and he
> > was momentarily in a total daze.
> >
>
> The word "paradigm" represents post-modernist/relativist
> claptrap to me. Sorry. "Idea" seems a perfectly
> good word to me, easier to pronounce and spell
> for us sixpacks. And the less fuzzier, the better, please...
It should be clear that I am rabidly anti-postmodernist
claptap. Relativism? Well, that's a more complex
question. I think all "first-order" theories are
"relative", but that transcendental reflection
provides a -- albeit trepidant and not dogmatic! --
standpoint beyond the relativity of all first-order
theories, but at the "price" (I find it a benefice!)
of situating certainty in the process of human communication,
rather than in the objects of that discourse.
Yours in the often foggy dimension of cyberspace....
\brad mccormick
