[lit-ideas] Vedr: (un)dusting one's glasses

  • From: Torgeir Fjeld <torgeir_fjeld@xxxxxxxx>
  • To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 20:25:47 +0100 (BST)

The question this raises isn't so much whether we can arrive at some formal, 
"non-human" language in which to couch our objective insights, but the extent 
to which statements ("propositions") in this language would be exempt from 
ordinary issues related to reading and meaning. One common measure of democracy 
is acceptance of more than one reading of the same situation -- what we often 
refer to as a variety of (more than one) subject positions -- and while this 
would certainly undermine the validity of any thesis of an objective nature of 
a formal language of truth, it would have the benefit of allowing more than one 
experience of the -- theoretically speaking -- same phenomena to be voiced and 
accepted into the annals of science. 

Human beings are known for our capacity to engender meaning from situations 
that may be experienced as challenging. How would soccer players of different 
teams make different meanings of -- making differently meaningful -- a game in 
which they were confronted -- one ending up winning, the other losing -- given 
that both players have an interest in making meanings that validate their 
vision of life?

Mvh / Yours,

Torgeir Fjeld, PhD
Gdansk, Poland

Blogs: http://phatic.blogspot.com // http://norsketegn.blogspot.com
Web: http://independent.academia.edu/TorgeirFjeld

Other related posts: