dingbat wrote:
> uuh=uhhh now. i asked you first, so you have to answer first: is an
> epistemology possible without an ontology (explicity or implied)? If so,
> what does it look like.
Kelley, I really don't know what you mean by this. I would understand "ontology" as meaning a science of being, with being defined as a metaphysical reality existing independently of the actual world. Hence I never use the term. I would define "epistemology" as an attempt to answer neurological quesions in poetic terms. (See Sebastiano Timpanaro, *On Materialism* [Verso, 1975], esp. pp. 57ff.)
In any case, political discussion becomes impossible if every discussion involves a return to real or alleged first principles. I write within a general marxian tradition, including most but not all who so identify themselves. (Of course my everyday political work is only with non-marxists, but that is not relevant here.) Your demand for an epistemology and an ontology, from this perspective, is somewhat facetious way of saying "Go fuck yourself, I'm not interested."
Very well.
Carrol