|
filth---i basically agree with you now that i've had a chance to read the paper.
i see it more as an exploration of rationality in the sociological sense and of the ways in which people internalize and invest in socially specific ways of thinking. reason in this kind of context is simply a way to referencing how people assemble information within particular frames of reference. most rationalities are bounded---boundedness is what shapes things like confirmation bias.
i thought the paper much more interesting than the plot summary in the ny times made it out to be---and quite different from it. in the paper, it appeared that evolution was a term that gave what is basically an analysis of function the appearance of some historical depth. but really, it seemed like a restatement of function. it's likely a disciplinary quirk.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|