>but the problem doesn't really stem from the heterogeneous nature
>of evidence in different places and times; rather, it stems from
>the gesture, inspired by normative methodologies, of diagnosing
>evidence as inadequate.
>
>cheers,
>t
Good points. What you say makes perfect sense. Try it on a PE though. Or a 2nd International type.
But a question or two: what say you about adjudication. How do we adjudicate (so to speak) b/w pieces, if not types of evidence. Not adequate or inadequate, but rather...what? What is a non-normative methodology, or a non-normative approach to evidence? I am thinking of the anti-moralist Marx (radical historicism), and Foucault, or maybe some anthropologist. I am thinking of one of MF's lines about writing fictions: "One 'fictions' history starting from a political reality that renders it true, one 'fictions' a politics that doesn't as yet exist starting from an historical truth." You will notice I don't find you a relativist. The point is to politicize it, no?
-Dan
------------------------------------------------------ Daniel F. Vukovich Dept. of English; The Unit for Criticism University of Illinois Urbana, IL 61801 ------------------------------------------------------