I note, elsewhere, a preference for pluralism.  I also note what I see as the central challenge of pluralism: to be open to multiple perspectives requires acceptance of perspectives that are intolerant and exclusive, yet supporting such intolerance is not acceptable if one is to be open to multiple perspectives.  Damned if you do; damned if you don't.  I am reminded of a comment relevant to democracy:

Recognizing the need for coercion, and recognizing too that no coercion can be either incontestably fair or predictably just, democracies must find ways of fighting, while they use it, the very coercion that they need (Mansbridge 1996:^ref 46).

Similarly, a pluralist must find ways of diminishing, while they use it, the very tolerance and inclusion they support.  Pronouncing against anything but pluralism would not be pluralistic, yet enabling pluralism requires contraints on non-pluralism, which, ironically, calls for constraints on being pluralistic... 

[2] Challenged by ways to deal with this conundrum, I have (among other reasons) turned to the online medium.  By framing my arguments in different, contradictory ways, I present multiple perspectives - each internally consistent, each acknowledging others to greater and lesser degrees, each taken as valid and argued honestly.    The latter points, are crucial:  My interest lies in presenting discussion that relies on substantiated positions rather than rhetorical devices.  (Admitting, of course, that the 'all it can ever be is rhetoric' argument also has some validity.)  Further, my interest lies in presenting arguments that I hold to be valid; arguments that rest on premises and logic that I believe; ones that I support and would stand on.  The fact that there are contradictions is only problematic within a particular paradigm.  The contradictions reflect the complexity of values, beliefs and ontoepistemological groundings that appear to exist.  To state that I see no other alternative than to present multiple framings, however, is only one argument (albeit a sort of meta-argument).  While I believe that statement to be the case, I also hold to each of the other arguments presented...

[3] Arriving at this approach, has itself been a process, with the current technique only crystallizing recently, after considerable writing had been done.  [Perhaps I can point to this as part of my "methods" when I get around to writing that "methods" "chapter"...!]  Earlier versions struggled around addressing different learning styles (e.g. theory-first, versus examples-first) and different perspectives (e.g. more reflective versus more rational).  [See threads.]   Yet there was always a lingering dissatisfaction. 

[4]  In crystallizing the current approach, I have realized the different 'perspectives' or 'threads' as different ontoepistemological positions that provide different ways to frame the discussion.  I have not named these according to particular philosophical positions, however, because I think few of them are true to any traditional philosophy.  Each is more of an amalgam, loosely fitting with some philosophies more than others. 

[5] Since they provide a means of framing discussion, they occur more frequently in the 'top' levels of this hypertext, for example, with respect to each of the research areas covered.  On such pages - as on this one - a mouseover on one of the five keywords will pop-up text according to one of the five framings.  [aside on dis/advantage of popups over new pages...] 

[6] While less common in the deeper sections of this hypertext, I do not see the framings as irrelevant to such sections - I have simply found that they become repetitous.  [I expect this is, at least in part, due to lack of familiarity - with each of the arguments and with the approach altogether.  Most earlier writing has involved weaving some of them together - although a small hint of the approach can be seen in Dempster (2001a)^ref.  It is most explicit in my comprehensive exam (Dempster 2001b)^ref.  So far, I have been presenting the arguments in a rather extreme manner, primarily for my own benefit, to be clear on their differences.  While part of the point is that such extremity is not required, that they manifest in subtle and insidious ways- I have yet to become well versed in their languages.] 

[7] Given that this hypertext dissertation is definitely still work-in-progress, I will not claim this to be the final approach.  For me, writing has typically been an integral part of the learning process - perhaps more so in this case than in many others.  With respect to this approach - and this dissertation - the learning continues... 

[8] There are a few other places where the intricacies of the framings, and of this approach to presentation more generally, carry greater weight in the discussion: 

• the beginning   
• outlining the basic argument
• each of the research themes

adlkjf alkfj

Reflecting. An intriguingly ambiguous term: introspective thinking and mirroring. On the one hand, pondering or mulling over - a process of looking inwards, probing depths to reveal hidden, suppressed, or undeveloped thoughts and assumptions. On the other hand, mirroring or emulating - a process that restricts probing the depths by returning a mirror image, a likeness that is often confoundingly, meticulously clear, but a barrier nonetheless.

[R2] More intriguingly, this barrier - an impassible boundary - is typically constructed by the observer.  In a fractalish turn, then, the impulse behind this thread renders it an example of the challenges taken as key foci for this research.

[R3] The first definition - introspection - describes the intention of this thread. Discussion expresses thinking turned inwards (perhaps also under or back). Discussion is informed by attempts to discern and disclose that which lies under the surface; that which remains invisible because it demarcates the very definition of 'normal'. By contemplating and questioning these unreachable zones, I look for jagged rocks concealed by surface reflections and ragged assumptions concealed by good intentions. While not as grand as archaeology of a Foucauldian sort, it is digging nonetheless.

[R4] The second definition - mirroring - describes the quandary present in the attempt - as well as the reason for trying. Obstructions arise through my incapacity for seeing through the reflections. Just like Alice, the desire is to see behind the mirror. Unlike Alice, mirrors have only offered me a few millimetres of transparency and a beguilingly deep yet surfacial depiction of myself. With craning neck and handheld mirror I strain for glimpses of the yet-unseen, but there is always a corner hidden by the very process of trying. Even more, the depiction itself remains dimensionless.

[R5] In presenting this thread, then, I am almost ready to admit defeat before I even begin. Yet this would disallow the only path that seems open: to examine and invite examination; to reflect and invite reflection; to exchange, to be humble, to dig.

[R6] To date, I have noticed that much of the discussion in this thread is more reflective than reflexive.  While these might meet, with the former opening space to reach the latter, they are not the same.  Further, while I have termed this thread reflecting (reflexing is not quite it and reflexiving just wont happen!), being reflexive is the intent.  For now, I continue taking the space as an opportunity for freeing up writing; for waxing poetic; for reflecting.  However, I will have to return to this thread in a more disciplined manner - throughout my dissertation - to do more of the digging mentioned above before I can call it complete.  dig.

[R7] The discussions listed under this thread are as varied as the topics they are associated with.  [aside]:

• reflecting on myself 
• reflecting on online dissertations

 

 

 

Skeptics wish to examine all sides of a question; and for every argument in favor of a thesis, they usually can find one or more arguments opposed to it. Extreme skepticism cannot consistently serve our practical interests, for insofar as it sires doubt, it inhibits actions...
Nevertheless, skepticism is essential to the quest for knowledge, for it is in the seedbed of puzzlement that genuine inquiry takes root (Kurtz 2001: 40).

In contemporary skepticism, cogent lines of argument denounce/challenge/take exception with the extremes: Descartes's notion that certain foundation arises from the fact that one thinks; Moore thumping his hand on the table as proof that reality exists [quotation]; the nihilism that some see in Neitzche.  While I might (and will, elsewhere) argue Kurtz's comment that extreme skepticism inhibits action, his emphasis on the essential nature of skepticism points to/indicates the motivation/position that underlies this framing. 

I draw also on the words/sentiment of Sim:

[Pyrrhonian skepticism] is the one for which I feel the most sympathy...  Its virtue lies in its very lack of claims; in its desire to be a technique for analysing the claims of others, and identifying their shortcomings, rather than a new source of authority in its own right...  While classical Pyrrhonians wished to reach a condition of quietude, I am more concerned to use scepticism to create disquiet, not just amongst dogmatists, but within the sceptical community itself.  Our own position should be under constant review, and should never become too comfortable... (Sim 2006: 17)

Kant's claim still stands.**  I only resist the skeptic through disbelief that I could imagine a world as intricate as the one I seem to experience. It is not because I have found an irrefutable argument against Descartes’ notion that reality could be only a dream or the more contemporary argument offered by the movie: Matrix. Rather than finding skeptical arguments scandalous, however, I agree that they “are important for what they show about knowledge” (Pollock and Cruz 1999: 10). As is also argued by Williams (1999), “The task of the contemporary epistemologist is to understand knowledge… not to show that the skeptic is wrong but to explain why he is wrong (Pollock and Cruz
1999: 10). [See the discussion on skepticism...]

Among the wide range of uncertainties any of us will face in our life there are some basic matters of 'fact' that impinge upon our daily lives; some central realities that make for lives of greater and lesser quality.  Chairs can be sat upon, going without food makes us hungry, socio-cultural norms lead to inclusions and exclusions.  Each of these statements arises from empirical observation: the act of sensing material phenomena. Certainly, there are exceptions to each of these claims, however, these too are frequently evaluated on an empirical basis.   In a discussion around the question of sustainability, it is essential to use empirical observation as a foundation.  The basic tenet of sustainability pertains to these foundational realities; to the materially-based facets of life-quality.  

[E2] Such an approach to framing the discussion, then, prioritizes factors that are less abstract and more particular, tangible or material. This does not mean that all discussion will necessarily be concrete or 'real' (which seem more appropriately considered as relative distinctions, regardless).

[E3] As examples:

• on rhizome and onlinediss, 'empiricalobservations' are pretty straightforward examples, presented as links to other websites 
• on beth, the page that describes me, 'empiricalobservations' offer two links: to pdf and html copies of my resume (a more concrete, less abstract description of me) 
• on makingcuts, i haven't really thought out what 'empiricalobservations' will/should be... 

ta da!...

 

When is inside outside; when is outside inside?  Think about aveoli in human lungs - deep inside the body, yet still an outside, acting as a surface for exchange between oxygen that is inside and oxygen that is outside.    

Statistics gathered on my university website a few years ago indicated a high percentage of users with 600x800 screens, which, in designing this hypertext, I thought it was important to accommodate.  I was surprised, however, at how much smaller this screen was: The blank band along the right-hand side seemed a significant loss - aesthetically and content-wise. While puzzling through some coding, a notion from my reading came to mind: that an inside is defined by its own outside; that 'inside' and 'outside' are entanglements, not distinctions. So I shifted to conceptualizing the band as 'outside' rather than empty - a creative, rather than vacant, space.  The challenges and opportunities of working with it, however, have included the technical and the philosophical.

 

I have implemented this conception by placing quotations in the 'outside', finding java-script that allows the content to change randomly. Those with wide enough screens, will see 'inside' and 'outside'; those with narrower screens, can scroll across to the 'outside' but will not miss anything 'essential' if they do not.  While the 'outside' remains quite basic at the moment, I can envision hyperlinks and other features, with the space spilling over into the 'main' page, entangling content in order to confuse the boundary I have established.

There is one major problem - for IE users.  The 'outside' is an internal frame that is filled by a separate html file.  Using the browser's "back" button, reloads this file rather than returning to the previous page.  Using the drop-down arrow beside the "back" button and choosing the previous page will bring the desired result.  I have yet to develop a work-around for this problem or a good way to let IE users know the current work-around.  Politically speaking, I am supportive of open-source in contrast to Microsoft and have consequently not spent much time on catering to IE users - although they make up the greater percentage of visitors.  One day...

Because I am using javascript and iframes, there is some interesting discussion here about how technical and philosophical detail come together. Initially, the 'outside' was actually a file containing the 'inside' - even though the latter appeared (as now) as the 'main' part of the page. Philosophically, I liked this arrangement. Despite working out/around some of the difficulties, there were others that remained. For example, anyone 'bookmarking' the page, actually bookmarked the 'outside' (and its default 'inside'), not the main content. Also, I thought the randomness and lack of connection between 'inside' and 'outside' would avoid some frame-difficulties (such as 'arriving' at a framed page without its frame, clashing colours/layouts, etc.). However, I was ultimately not happy with the arrangement.

I have subsequently redesigned the layout, making make the 'inside'(main content) the 'outside'(containing file) and turning the 'outside'(band) into the 'inside'(iframe). Philosophically - although I haven't quite thought it through - this might be even more appropriate:

For every inside that succeeds in seeing itself from its own outside, there is a further outside that can be discerned, distinguished, and designated. The inside turned outside is recaptured as an inside. (Rasch 2000: 80)

 

And beyond this, a further consideration:

...no matter where one goes, no matter how far, there is no way "out." For the very notion of an "outside" is part of the universe of meaning whose internal limitations we may now perhaps begin to appreciate... (Bartlett 1992: 5)

Can I create an 'outside'? Am I to illustrate my conception of my 'environment' - those voices, ideas, circumstances that have informed my thinking and practice? Or perhaps representing my 'outside' means listing quotations and linking to sites that are antithetical to mine...? Or perhaps I can only represent the 'outside' by asking for content from others...? Then again, perhaps there is no 'outside', but only multiple 'insides' intermingling in a fractal array of entanglement...

 

 

 

this page created:
substantive revisions: 2006.02.16, 2006.04.27
most recent substantive revisions: 2006.04.28