okay, ken and ange, now i think we're getting at the heart of the problem.
to assert that there is no separation between cartographer and map and to premise one's position on the claim that this is what others are doing seems a profound conceit to me. fristly, very few people take the position of naive realism or british empiricism these days. so, it seems to me that this claim ultimately perches one right on top of a hill on a raised relief map, peering down at everyone else. and not only that, from this lofty position, everyone else is presumed to be thinking they're not on the map as they map the map. well this is simply not so and this charge seems quite beside the point. what you can criticize others for is that they presume that methods might enable them to get closer to or approximate the position of cartographer. no one believes that an archemedean position is possible, but lthey do think methods can get you closer to such a position.
[of course, political praxis is one such method so that mucks things up a bit]
however, the problem that i've been trying to point out in various ways is this, and ken i've said this to you before: the maneuver that is made here is much like the one richard rorty makes. he lays claim to the superiority of his approach over others by assuming the demeanor of humbleness: "awww shucks and gosh-a-golly, folks," rorty says, as he kicks his toe in the dirt and shoves his hands deeper in his pockets, "philosophy is just another conversation in the conversation of mankind." but this is an epistemological claim: firstly, he maintains that he knows that philosophy is but another conversation whereas other don't. secondly, admitting this implies the superiority of his position over others who presumably engage in the conceit of objectivism. and thirdly, we are apparently supposed to be persuaded because rorty is humble enough [man enough] to admit it.
now this is a load of hooey. it may smell like a load of hooey. it may even look like a load of hooey, but make no mistake, it's a load of hooey.
and acknowledging that it's nothing but a load of hooey, celebrating and embracing the fact that it's a load of hooey, being humble about it doesn't make it anything but hooey.
no doubt.
oh i doubt that.
kelley
>first, I think there is something to be said for
>disavowing a certain role for theory and
>so-called intellectuals. ie., we can't transcend
>anything _in theory_, and to presume that we
>can or should is a conceit I would rather avoid
>as much as possible. our intellects are finite,
>not archimedean: they remain trapped in the
> world as it is, no matter how frustrating. this to me
>is also the meaning of Marx's injunction against
>utopianism. the pretense that one has overcome
>the world in theory is really the reproduction of the
>world in a more idealised form, shorn of the 'bad
>side' of a dialectical unity. which is another way
>of putting what you mention as the predicament
>of vanguardism, etc. which is also what ken was
>referring to as the impossibility of a separation
>between 'cartographer' and 'map'.