So much (?) for originality. Long live les copychats.
From: nsbrown@news.IntNet.net (NS Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.postmodern
Subject: Deconstruction vs. Destruction
Date: 18 Jan 1995 10:01:42 -0500
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <3fjagm$6ft@xcalibur.IntNet.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: xcalibur.intnet.net
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Cris here. :)
I've noted a source of controversy and confusion running
among many threads, and it seems to center around whether
there is a difference between "deconstruction" and "des-
truction." More specifically, it seems to arise when the
latter is inferred as implicit in the former.
"Deconstruction," as I use the term, means recognizing that
a given construct (idea, concept, ideology, theory, etc.)
is a *choice*. That it is one of a number of options, and
is not "writ large on the cosmos."
"Destruction," as I use the term, means saying that a given
construct (choice) is *invalid* (wrong).
A classic example is the deconstruction of the Scientific
Method. It is not all that difficult a task to show that
the Method is a construct, a set of *choices*, not "writ
large on the cosmos." It is also not all that difficult
to show that the Method is a very *narrow* choice, in that
(at least in its current form) it is limited to those domains
of experience which are intersubjectively observable, quanti-
fiable and replicable. This excludes vast domains of our
everyday experience (e.g.: love, pain, beauty) because they
lack one or more of the aforementioned metrics.
MUST we then take the next step and decide that the Method
is *invalid*? Must we decry it as "wrong," or "narrow-
minded?" Must we eschew its further teaching and use?
No.
It is one thing to recognize that the Scientific Method is
a choice -- not the *only* way of studying our experience.
It is something else again to say that the Method is always
the *wrong* choice. In fact, in many domains, it has proven
to be a very useful and efficacious choice; it has provided
us with modern medicine, the cars we drive, the computers
we use, and hundreds of thousands of other everyday items
which enable and enrich daily activities. In some domains,
the Method *works*, and there is no compelling reason to
abandon it.
Still, it often seems as if we have some need to believe
that what we "know" comes from "out there" somewhere. As
long as we can perceive it as "writ large on the cosmos,"
we can trust it. Once we recognize that it's a choice from
"in here," we get wary ... almost to the point of believing
that *any* choice from "in here" is inherently suspect and
probably wrong.
It may be that we are in a transition state, moving away
from the (modern) belief that Truth is only found "out there"
toward the (postmodern) belief that we make decisions about
Truth "in here." We've learned to recognize that we make
those decisions. But once we've identified some perceived
Truth as a construct (choice), the old training and worldview
almost compel us to declare that construct "wrong" and go
seeking some "better" Truth ... "out there."
We've learned how to recognize a construct as a choice, but
we haven't yet learned how to *validate* that choice.
So we unnecessarily leap from Deconstruction to Destruction,
leading to the endlessly recursive analysis of which James
Elson and others have despaired. When the deconstructive
process has spun all way down to the fundamental constructs
upon which we build experience, and recognized those as mere
choices, we begin to wonder "What's left?"
For me, the answer is "Everything we had before, if we want to
keep it." If we decide a given choice is useful, if it "works"
in the domain to which it is applied (Pragmatic Truth), we can
choose to *act as if* it is "real." We can use it in exactly
the same way we did before, though perhaps more aware of the
bounds of its reliability. Alternatively, if it seems useless,
if it "doesn't work," we can make a different choice ... choose
a different construction of experience. And if that alternative
"works better" than what we had before (Pragmatic Truth), we
can choose to *act as if* that alternative choice is "real."
Recognizing that my chair is composed of wood, glue, metal and
fabric, shaped by human hands, does not mean it's not still "a
chair." I can still sit in it. :)
Just an opinion, worth what you paid for it. :)
Cris
Newsgroups: alt.postmodern
Subject: Deconstruction vs. Destruction
Date: 18 Jan 1995 10:01:42 -0500
Organization: Intelligence Network Online, Inc.
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <3fjagm$6ft@xcalibur.IntNet.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: xcalibur.intnet.net
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Cris here. :)
I've noted a source of controversy and confusion running
among many threads, and it seems to center around whether
there is a difference between "deconstruction" and "des-
truction." More specifically, it seems to arise when the
latter is inferred as implicit in the former.
"Deconstruction," as I use the term, means recognizing that
a given construct (idea, concept, ideology, theory, etc.)
is a *choice*. That it is one of a number of options, and
is not "writ large on the cosmos."
"Destruction," as I use the term, means saying that a given
construct (choice) is *invalid* (wrong).
A classic example is the deconstruction of the Scientific
Method. It is not all that difficult a task to show that
the Method is a construct, a set of *choices*, not "writ
large on the cosmos." It is also not all that difficult
to show that the Method is a very *narrow* choice, in that
(at least in its current form) it is limited to those domains
of experience which are intersubjectively observable, quanti-
fiable and replicable. This excludes vast domains of our
everyday experience (e.g.: love, pain, beauty) because they
lack one or more of the aforementioned metrics.
MUST we then take the next step and decide that the Method
is *invalid*? Must we decry it as "wrong," or "narrow-
minded?" Must we eschew its further teaching and use?
No.
It is one thing to recognize that the Scientific Method is
a choice -- not the *only* way of studying our experience.
It is something else again to say that the Method is always
the *wrong* choice. In fact, in many domains, it has proven
to be a very useful and efficacious choice; it has provided
us with modern medicine, the cars we drive, the computers
we use, and hundreds of thousands of other everyday items
which enable and enrich daily activities. In some domains,
the Method *works*, and there is no compelling reason to
abandon it.
Still, it often seems as if we have some need to believe
that what we "know" comes from "out there" somewhere. As
long as we can perceive it as "writ large on the cosmos,"
we can trust it. Once we recognize that it's a choice from
"in here," we get wary ... almost to the point of believing
that *any* choice from "in here" is inherently suspect and
probably wrong.
It may be that we are in a transition state, moving away
from the (modern) belief that Truth is only found "out there"
toward the (postmodern) belief that we make decisions about
Truth "in here." We've learned to recognize that we make
those decisions. But once we've identified some perceived
Truth as a construct (choice), the old training and worldview
almost compel us to declare that construct "wrong" and go
seeking some "better" Truth ... "out there."
We've learned how to recognize a construct as a choice, but
we haven't yet learned how to *validate* that choice.
So we unnecessarily leap from Deconstruction to Destruction,
leading to the endlessly recursive analysis of which James
Elson and others have despaired. When the deconstructive
process has spun all way down to the fundamental constructs
upon which we build experience, and recognized those as mere
choices, we begin to wonder "What's left?"
For me, the answer is "Everything we had before, if we want to
keep it." If we decide a given choice is useful, if it "works"
in the domain to which it is applied (Pragmatic Truth), we can
choose to *act as if* it is "real." We can use it in exactly
the same way we did before, though perhaps more aware of the
bounds of its reliability. Alternatively, if it seems useless,
if it "doesn't work," we can make a different choice ... choose
a different construction of experience. And if that alternative
"works better" than what we had before (Pragmatic Truth), we
can choose to *act as if* that alternative choice is "real."
Recognizing that my chair is composed of wood, glue, metal and
fabric, shaped by human hands, does not mean it's not still "a
chair." I can still sit in it. :)
Just an opinion, worth what you paid for it. :)
Cris
posted by tralalom at 4:56 PM
0 comments
