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