On 5/30/06, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don't have any problem with Taylor's Framework concept as long as I can be all the things I am. I am a Christian, a Marine, a Poet, a novelist, a free diver, a hiker, a dog fancier, a Conservative, a Liberal-Democrat, a Common Reader of philosophy, history, anthropology etc. If Taylor insists on jamming me into just one of his Frameworks I am going to feel uncomfortable. On the other hand, Collingwood, if memory serves me, would be content to let me assemble my own set of absolute presuppositions and call it my Constellation if I like.
Far from having a problem with Taylor's concept, you have just provided a perfect example of the modern predicament he's writing about. Having so many roles to play and so many frameworks to frame them, trying to jam your life entirely into one of them wouldn't just be uncomfortable. It would be damned near impossible. The other side of the coin, however, is that none of the frameworks to which we attach our selves has the absolute binding force of the one big framework that Luther, for example, took for granted.
John
John McCreery The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
US CITIZEN ABROAD? THROW THE RASCALS OUT! Register to Vote in '06 Elections www.VoteFromAbroad.org ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
