Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:48:06 -0800
Subject: Re: Reason & Metanarratives


jon roffe wrote:
> 
> Hugh wrote,
> 
> >> Maybe we can discuss in depth the problem of the metanarrative, for I
> >> am not sure I understand it.
> 
> Yes - this one interests me too.  Until coming across Lyotard, I'd been
> operating not with the idea of ideology, but rather that of
> essentialism. The notion of Metanarrative has always seemed a little bit
> problemmatic to me, because it seems to assume that it is held in a
> fixed form by many people (ie that everyone has the same notion of
> 'scientific progress' as everyone else), and as a result, it has the
> same kind of power/knowledge effects everywhere.  Perhaps I am
> misconstruing it.
> 
> Is the difference between ideology, essentialism, meta-narrative, etc.
> simply one of preferred vocabulary (and  if is is, how is the differend
> involved?)?  They all seem to be orientated in some way around
> univeralisms.
> 
> Jon
> &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
>
Jon,

Matt responded on this subject to a message from Mark Shulgasser which
I seem to have missed completely.  Computer problem, I think.

And in a previous post, Matt gave a definition of meta-narrative
which I can pretty much agree with.

"Essentialism" is an ism I've heard less about than meta-narrative,
and will check Webster.

I don't think people believe meta-narratives in just the same way -
look at the various sects within a given religion.

But they share enough in common to make them believers.  And I think
that is true (part of the definition) of meta-narrative.

All such terms inevitably require explanation if they are relatively
new and were invented by people you never heard of to describe
something you never thought of.

So it takes a bit to get an understanding.  Recognizing the need for 
references, I am disappointed when I get referred from one unknown or
little known author to another.

To have a meaningful discussion we need to understand the main themes
well enough to describe even defend them, because they are something
we agree with and know why or disagree with and know why.  

I'm really more interested in what you and Matt and Eric and others 
on the List think, and can teach us, than in the names of authors I
don't want to read.  

Of course references can be valuable.

Here is a quote from Matt's post which I noted above:

 Gadamer, like
Derrida, accounts very clearly for what cannot be known in
interpretation--the "pre-judgements"--that can be dispelled in part
when
examined during the act of having dialogue with a text, but ultimately
cannot be completely abandoned since they are a part of what the
interpreter "is"-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is very interesting.  Not completely new if you reflect, as 
Albee did, that a thousand people can sit in a theater and see a 
thousand different plays.

Likewise what even a single word "means" depends on sender and receiver.

Now on to "essentialism".

thanks,

Hugh