lessons learned from my colloquium

[intertribal]

so apparently my real theoretical fight is with the realists, not the rationalists, and they are not the same thing (yes, starting with the same letter and having similar connotations is not enough).  because you apparently cannot fight with rational choice.  it is the unbeatable ID, it is 42, it is God with a capital G.  give rationalists any situation, perhaps even situations that involve prehistoric plants, and they will tell you that it fits their theory.  they are magic.  they are the sacred cow, the undying worm. 

whatever.  realism it is.

*rolls eyes*

Comments

god, i hadn't read that bourdieu since intro anthro...now i feel dumb

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

and considering my attachment to peirce, bourdieu, and bateson, I should probably even say that most of our decisions are not so rational. or that our thinking of what a decision is is flawed, and we do not actually make decisions in the manner we think of them when we analyze the considerations they must take into account. that we are in fact capable of taking those considerations into account through habit, through past experience, through learning. but also that we're capable of reflecting on them rationally, of rationalizing them.