Re: Dissertation
Bob Parks (bobp@lightlink.com)
Sun, 26 Apr 1998 18:34:44 -0500
>Jim,
> I suspected you would respond to the comment on "illusions". I didn't
>have time to read your earlier postings on "construction of reality", but
>I'll try to dig them out. I'll respond briefly now.
>
>>> First, I would like to note that Marx would agree with much of your
>>>statement. But with the proviso that we recognize that the task is not
>>>so much to dispel our or others' illusions, but to abandon the
>>>conditions which require illusiions. (I'll cite the passage if someone
>>>is interested.)
>>>
>>
>> Here I have some trouble..... How will we know which is an
>>illusion???The point I would make is that we always work with
>>constructions.. Perhaps I am saying that we need to dispell the illusion
>>that we work with something other than illusions!!!
>
>I'm not making an "objectivist" epistemological claim. Instead, I see the
>drive toward "groundedness" or "rationality" (in a world out there) in
>terms of a "way of life" to be a central part of the construction process.
>It seems to me that just because our perspectives are uniquely shaped by
>our experiences and interests, we need not conclude all perspectives are
>inadequate, or that all are equally adequate for the task of guiding our
>human endeavors. I have learned from others primarily by following my
>intuition that their constructions are better (more refined, informed,
>grounded, etc) than mine in some way for some purpose.
>
>We are all trying to re-construct our own constructions, based on prior
>constructions of goals, dreams, impulses, etc. For example, in a love
>relationship, when I find that I "mis-construed" her behavior, I have a
>motivation to find a better construction. But I also have to ask myself
>how I let myself get into that mis-construction. Was it "self-interest",
>or a view of myself as needing to uphold a construction of myself as a
>macho male, etc.
>
>I don't want to defend an absolute "objectivist" position. but accepting
>deficiencies in constructions seems to be part of the process of
>construction itself. What do you think?
>
>Thanks for the response,
>Bob
>
>PS My apologies for the poor spelling.
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%