On 12/22/06, Dennis Claxton <ddclaxton at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Do you think that you have addressed anything by pulling a phrase out
> >about "vision"?
> >
> That was addressed to your saying that you try to be
> "non-theoretical". I only wanted to say that doesn't seem possible.
1) Let us assume that what you say is true -- that I have privileged "vision" as an analogy or metaphor _for knowledge_ in some unsupportable way; that what I said is systematically misleading or rooted in some theory. Then your implied argument seems to be that you can ignore everything I have written about how deconstructionists and post-modernists misuse notions such as "reading", "text", "narrative" and "language." That because I misuse a notion everyone else is privileged to misuse a notion. Well, I am sorry, you may accuse me of misusing an analogy or metaphor, and you may be correct, but that doesn't mean it is a good thing that I do it, or that anyone else does it.
2) Let us assume that you are correct and that the word "vision" is somehow "embedded" in a "theory" and I used it anyway. Does that mean that I my use of the word must be "embedded" in some theory of your choice?
Well let us see. If I had used the phrase "way of understanding" instead of the words "vision", does that mean I must be wedded to "Taoism" or some notion of "travel" or to "ontology" and some notion of a "search" for "grounding". Well if you say, yes, then perhaps there is no basis for "conversation" between us, because our notions of what is "listening" or "reading" in a "conversation" are simply at odds.
Examples abound of using words that have been embedded in some "theory" or "philosophy" in the course of human history, without the word used in the current context necessarily being "theoretical" or "philosophical."
If I use the word "motion" or "movement", referring to the phenomena we all understand as a notion of moving, it does not commit me to Aristotle's speculations on "motion" or to DeCartes or to Newtons.
I can use the word "revolution" quite literally ('How many revolutions did that wheel turn?") or "metaphorically" ("Dennis brought about a real revolution in my thinking.") without necessarily referring to any particular "revolution" or to Lenin's or anyone's notions ("theories") of revolution.
I can use the word "reading" literally, metaphorically or analogically, without ever committing myself to deconstruction. ("Give me a reading of the weather outside.")
But for some reason Dennis, you claim that I can't use the word "vision", as I do, as a very loose "placeholder" for "way of understanding" or "project for knowing" or "hope that I develop a method for explaining", without implying all of the mishigosh about "light", "gnosis" "spirit", and seeing "God."
This is very strange. I am trying hard to believe that you are not swatting flies to distract everybody from the game on the board -- an old trick of clubhouse chess players.
On the lack of "theory":
I don't think there is a theory of history ( or of meaning ) in a scientific sense, or even in a Marxist sense. There are hundreds of such theories.
Since I believe that it is true that there are too many contingencies in history for their to be a theory;
Since we know too little about human behavior, choices, and institutions, for us to have a good theory of history or of the law;
I also think that it is best to not to pretend that we have certainty or knowledge where there is no certainty or knowledge.
Therefore, I am "non-theoretical" in the sense that I don't see any good theories, to use.
Now, I also believe that there are good methods to use; that I have a "world view" that includes such notions and concepts as "rule of law", "kinship systems," "ideology", "class striuggle," and that I informed by Marx. I will try to make my own assumptions and ideological underpinnings as conscious as possible. I also think that there you can possibly "perceive" certain historical "patterns" and "patterns" in "state formation" and that possibly history can be "understood" better by "perceiving" those patterns.
Now you may believe that there are good theories of history, I don't. If you do believe that there is a good theory of history, or specifically theoretical explanations and/or models of the rise of law in ancient city-states, reveal them to me and I will not insist that I must be "non-theoretical" in this areas of my studies. I will not insist that our knowledge is not very certain in these areas.
So let's put aside the problem of a theory of history or of human institutions because you have not revealed one to me and go on to your "critique" of my use of the word vision.