SciFi Ignorance

——————————————–
I was also flattered that you thought my puny brain could benefit from it, but now I see you simply mistook me for Aleck). I found it highly interesting and generally agreed with the central conclusion quoted below:

“As understanding and knowledge thus can vary somewhat independently, it is then essential in life and in philosophy to retain an awareness that different issues, hermeneutic and foundational, may be involved in many, or all, questions.”

Reading it caused me to revisit my initial statement, where it appeared that I left no room for objectivity in the assessment of creative works – this is of course wrong, as there are many elements that may be analyzed objectively (plot complexity and originality, depth of characterization, technical quality of production, influence on similar works, etc…). My argument is that despite these elements, the impact of creative works on different audiences will also involve interpetation and subjectivity. This does not mean all intepetations are equally valid, nor is it a defense of subjectivity in general which I believe should be eliminated, to the extent possible, from as many decisions and questions as possible. This was alluded to in my original post.[/QB][/QUOTE]
——————————————–

Jason, I’m sorry for taking so long to respond. My next door neighbour’s cat just had kittens, and I was too busy trying to drown them in everyone’s sorrows [img]images/smiles/icon_redface.gif[/img]

Seriously, I’m sorry for the confusion my post engendered regarding you and A. It was a very presumptious and obnoxious error of judgement, but I’m pleased that it at least amused someone.

My biggest confusion, however, is why you would impugn your own intelligence. Your original two responses to me indicated someone with a very acute mind indeed. Although I felt that some of the remarks were misguided, it was certainly apparent that you would be willing and able to develop and clarify your own position. So I’m grateful that you tracked me down in one of my many guises in order to do this.

I think you’ve identified and pursued the problem to your credit. Now, I want to stress that I view any knowledge claim as problematic – none more so than the claims creative works can make upon us. Without pursuing the status of art in great detail, I would like to at least note that these have tended to be privledged in many accounts of meaning and truth. It is almost as if their mode of address really drives certain points (back) home by hitting us all where we live.

Consequently, the only reservation I have with your characterisation of the problem is the attempt to steer a relatively safe passage between being subjective and/or objective. I have to confess to being very uncomfortable with the attempt to minimise the one at the expense of the other. I don’t think it is either possible or desirable. The question is the nature of the relation between knowledge and experience (working on the assumption that these are distinct but related in so far as experience is ‘subjective’ and knowledge can be ‘objective’). The ‘foundational’ question is the source of knowledge and experience, and how the objects of the one (experience) can either conform to or deviate from the objects of the other (knowledge). The concern that motivates such a problem is the nature of the relation between those objects that subjects can all dis/agree on. That is, WHAT is an object (of knowledge and/or experience), and HOW do such objects come to be (in such conformity or deviation)?

Given these questions, the problem is the nature and extent of the dis/agreement. Many of us want to demarcate between (experiences of) objects, but this just returns us to the problem of knowledge.

I want to thank you for recognising that I wasn’t attempting to render your position unassailable, and appreciate the attempt to discuss some admittedly dense material. For the record – these questions continue to defeat minds greater than ours put together, so I’m not trying to get you to dis/agree with me. I’m just trying to make clear how opaque these issues really are, and that by trying to clear them up can really murk the waters.

…You’ll have to excuse me now – I’ve just seen an unattended baby with candy in her hand (twirls moustache).

[ 27-02-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]