Reply to comment

 I have been reflecting on last week's discussions and a few things in particular have been circling around in my brain:

1)  Whilst reading King's book, I was -- as I shared in class -- perturbed by the lack of references for the historical information presented.  Yes, there were books listed in the "Notes" section, but the "fact-seeking" individual in me wanted some sort of criterium for the information selected and the manner in which it was presented, as well as an acknowledgement that there might be other versions of this story. There's that word again: "story." I began thinking, perhaps this is part of King's illustration of, "The truth about stories is that that's all we are" (p. 2 and others), as well as the point he makes regarding the "voice" of a story being relatable to its "authority" (last paragraph on p.22 through to p.23).

2) Once I'd had that thought, I began relating it to part of the debates we'd had in class about stories of science and whether or not they hold more weight in the truth department than what we've been terming as "myths." As I understand it, our use of "myths" reflected outdated stories that, as some point in the past, served to explain the universe. Can modern scientific theories be termed as "factual" whereas myths have been proven "false?" I regret using so many scare-quotes, but I find myself hesitant to use so many of these terms freely, given the nature of our discussion. If we speculate that the answer is no, and scientific facts are somehow equal to these myths, then that calls into question many of the "facts" and "laws" by which we live. In other words, do we have anything close to dependable knowledge?

3) That led me to think about the conversation we had regarding myths and science as both resulting from observations. The observation came first, and the theory followed. So, if it was established that scientific theories were stories, open to change in their perceived validity, that still wouldn't change the fact that when I walk, my feet land on the ground.

4) However, as it was brought up in class, there can be "tricks of the eye." What we observe, hear, feel, taste, and smell can be deceptive. This reminded me of my rudimentary exposure to Plato and Aristotle's disagreement of epistemology. I am wary of bringing in external material, but I can't claim these ideas as my own, so if I may crudely abbreviate my understanding of their stances for the purpose of giving credit to original thought, it would help to explain my own thoughts on this particular facet of our discussions. Plato was distrustful of sensory deception and believed through his own (or what he claimed as Socrates') logical deductions that there had to be a metaphysical, Ultimate Good/Truth to be sought after (just as was posited in class: "The Truth") and all other knowledge was somehow a mere replica of this. Aristotle, as I recall, believed the opposite: only sensory observations could be relied upon and indicative of any sort of truth or reliable knowledge. But it seems to me, given my brief presentation of these two giants' stances, that science involves both: observations are made, and hypotheses are developed intending to explain them, but often these hypotheses are developed using logical deduction, not observation. Indeed all of the myths suggested (that I read) involved both stances as well, inasmuch as there were familiar, recognizable, observable behaviors and phenomena presented, and then...imagination?...filled in the gaps, so to speak. At its most basic: there is an Earth, there are humans and animals, and this is how we will explain these things.

5) How any given person/society/culture chooses to explain things seems to reflect in some manner the values of that culture at that time, and perhaps that is why our stories seem to change as we change. As I understand him, King's example of this is: "Native writers began to use the Native present as a way to resurrect a Native past and to imagine a Native future.  To create, in words, as it were, a Native universe" (p. 106)

N.B. Another external source that came to mind was Hayden White's Metahistory. In Chapter 2 "Hegel: The Poetics of History and the Way Beyond Irony" White details how all histories have a narrative-type, and the same historical events, or periods can be very different depending upon the narrative they are given. For example: a potentially tragic narrative telling of our section's last class might look like, "There were divergencies, people were talking past one another, or taking opposing stances and no resolution was made." Whereas a potentially romantic telling might be, "Widely different opinions were presented, enriching the conversation with diversity and providing fodder for thought beyond the classroom." It seems to me that this relates to King's book and his presentation of stories as being "all we are," as well as his ideas on the malleability of stories.