> >=======
>Ahem, the metaphor.....We might as well say why did Darwin attempt
to
> >break with theistic explanations of causality with regards to
plants
>and animals.
>
>Ian
Are you aware of Foucault's view of causal explanation?
Yoshie
=========
Well, golly no I'm not. I don't read stuff by hashish smokers and bald
men who take lsd in the desert; they must be fucked up or something.
They certainly wouldn't know anything about the microdynamics of power
in various institutional settings so why should I read their stuff?
Tell you what Yoshie; why don't you take 5, maybe ten years and work
in a Fortune 500 company. The first 5 years, do nothing but analyze
the firm with the categories of M. The second 3 years do it with the
categories of F. Then take the last two years and play a game of
combinatorics with the two models and analyses and compare your
experience with the firm's balance sheet and the way it's reported in
the press. Then we'll talk about which set of assumptions, inferences
and the like most "correspond" to the reality you experience. It will
not be a zero-sum game of methodological purity....You will find
underdetermination, radical indeterminacy, capriciousness and just
plain old randomness in your data. There will be days you will find
both thinkers skills incapable of describing what you experience.
Other days you will find one or the other or both, are right on the
mark; the next week you will throw up your hands and reach for a glass
of anything to shut your neurons down completely because, well, no
matter how brilliant they were, they just weren't there goddammit so
how could they know........
Ian