Berlin: “Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories”
This article got me to thinking about my own epistemological beliefs, which don’t really conform to anything in the article. Like Aristotelians, I believe that the material world exists; unlike Aristotelian I just don’t think we can know it. I don’t think the world exists independently of human activity, nor do I think it’s wholly constructed by it. In other words, I don’t think reality is entirely socially constructed. For years, I’ve been looking for a way to ground my belief that the world and the subject are more than the sum of their parts. Lately I’ve been exploring “emergence,” an idea that philosopher Joseph Margolis appropriated from physics and systems engineering to account for the meaning of works of art and then adapted to describe the subject. Briefly, as I understand it, there emerges out of complex systems properties and abilities not attributable to any of the parts of the system. Subjectivity and meaning are emergent properties. Since new elements continually enter into dynamic systems like subjects and discourses, new properties can continually emerge. That’s why we (and our belief systems) continue to change and to grow. Now I’m trying to understand entropy as a way of understanding system stagnation and decay. Who’d have thought studying literature and composition would lead me to physics?
Although one must of course interpret to make meaning (774), it doesn’t follow that there is no truth. It just follows that we cannot get directly at it. But I believe I’ve gone off on one of my rants about this in a past blog. I’ll just say that to claim that “language embodies and generates truth” is not the same thing as to claim that there is no truth. It may be to claim that there is no Truth, but that’s a different issue. I want to be wary of confusing epistemology for ontology. It’s not so much that truth is impossible without language. Truth is impossible to express without language, but expression and existence are not the same thing. The perimeter of any plane square, for instance, will always = 2(l+w), no matter whether language exists to express its truth. It’s true even if there are no squares! Certain mathematical truths are like that (2+2=4, for example). The proposition is true, even if the sentence that expresses it is contingent. Some truths of physics are like this, too.
Why don’t people realize that assertions that there’s no such thing as truth either violate the law of non-contradiction or are self-excepting?
Anyway, I’m not entirely sure what the implications of all this for pedagogy are. I just put it out there as an alternative to what Berlin outlines because I find the Aristotelian determinism, current-traditional positivism, expressionistic Romantic individualism, and stark post-structural relativism all unsatisfying.
It's been a vivid semester. Peace to all.
1 comment:
Well, I'm a bit out of intellectual gas to debate ontology with you, but the "absoluteness" or universiality of math is certainly a good starting point for debate. It is our language that constructed "math." Period. Someone could come along and "radically shatter" mathmatical theory by manipulating our language/symbol system, i.e., making up a new concept, etc.
It makes me think of "hunt for extraterrestrials" based on math as it is some universal system. Maybe that's why we've never found anyone else...
Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with you, so much as commenting on your comments...
Post a Comment