|
no lasareth-----all that stuff is embedded in *your* question. how can "we" know presupposes a particular set of conventions that define knowing. all i did was try to make them explicit.
my position is more relativist...that's why i wrote that many things are exactly as one imagines them to be---by imagining in this case, you can either take it in a subjective sense, or in a more social-historical sense---for the first, you repeat the social conventions that shape the world you project around you--for the second, you link collective projections as to the world back to a network of constraints that shape them---with the second, if the latter change, the former changes. that's what i mean by relativist in this situation.
there's a boatload of traditions that see no particular break between this plane of being and others, no particular break between past and present, ancestors and those who act in the present. maybe they're all wrong--but in relation to what? maybe they're not. or maybe the question is meaningless.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|