Ha! Yes, that's a much more reasonable statement than saying "'everything is text' is bullshit".
It's not bullshit. It may be a bit misguided. Or perhaps they're overstating the case simply to provide
emphasis to their (overly dense) audience. But calling it "bullshit" doesn't help. There is such a
thing as "bullshit", and this ain't it.
On 8/21/20 6:25 PM, Eric Charles wrote:
---You can't take "as if P" seriously without taking P seriously.---
It's not what I'm taking seriously, though, right? I don't doubt that the
authors in question take textual interpretation seriously (and come from a
tradition of taking textual interpretation seriously). I also don't doubt that
the methods they developed in that context can provide insights in other
contexts. But that doesn't make those other contexts into texts.
On 8/21/20 8:28 AM, Eric Charles wrote:
> A totally bullshit position that no one should ever have tolerated for a minute:
"Everything is text."
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
