Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 17, No. 324.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/
www.princeton.edu/humanist/
Submit to: humanist@princeton.edu
[1] From: "Malcolm Hayward" <mhayward@iup.edu> (17)
Subject: Re: 17.318 criteria for "theory" &c
[2] From: lachance@origin.chass.utoronto.ca (Francois (22)
Lachance)
Subject: Re: 17.318 criteria for "theory" &c
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 06:18:27 +0100
From: "Malcolm Hayward" <mhayward@iup.edu>
Subject: Re: 17.318 criteria for "theory" &c
I think we can all concur that Willard deserves our blessings and curses
for raising such interesting questions and making us think in the morning.
Who has time to consider such things as the bases of theory? And who can
escape trying to think through such issues once they are laid before us?
That said, I was reading through Sidney's "Defense of Poesy" (to teach it
today) and was struck yet once more by "Now, for the poet, he nothing
affirms, and therefore never lieth. For, as I take it, to lie is to affirm
that to be true which is false. So as the other artists, and especially the
historian [take that, historians], can, in the cloudy knowledge of mankind,
hardly escape from many lies," and so on. As with the poet, so too with the
theorist, I think, for the theorist knows in the back of his/her mind that
the theory is a fabrication meant to be measured not by truth values but by
some level of satisfaction, related ultimately to service to the good. As
to the other issue Willard raises, I wouldn't say that the theory is a
narrative construction in itself; that might look too much like the
affirmation of truth. Rather theories supply the organizing structures upon
which narratives may be built. Perhaps must be built. Malcolm Hayward
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 06:19:38 +0100
From: lachance@origin.chass.utoronto.ca (Francois Lachance)
Subject: Re: 17.318 criteria for "theory" &c
Willard,
Might you be searching for a space between ethic and theory? The question
is suggested by a reading of Michel de Certeau's "History, Science and
Fiction" which appeared in Social Science as Moral Inquiry ed. by R.
Bellah et al. (1983) and reprinted in Heterologies (1986). The French
historiographer writes:
<quote>
Differentiated and limited disciplines, which organize operations within
coherent frameworks, define theoretical hypotheses, specific objects of
knowledge, and scopes of investigations. The social sciences born in modern
times form a set of institutions that express ethical postulates through
technical operations.
</quote>
For me, de Certeau's essay resonnates with the often encountered tension
in text encoding discussions between an ontological approach (the attempt
to represent a what is there) and a more nominalist approach (documenting
a reading, marking out a possible map). It seems what you are after in
your quest for a theoretically-informed space is a space where a dialogue
between practitioners can occur.
-- Francois Lachance, Scholar-at-large http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~lachance
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Oct 22 2003 - 01:55:03 EDT