(I totally see the value in statements like "the story is that there's no story", but that isn't useful in the context of this model)
Conversation
Definitely not trying to play with semantics. I’d love to understand the framework. How I read the logic is as follows:
1
A pragmatist doesn’t believe in one overarching narrative, or a story that explains the past and predicts the future.
1
2
The pragmatist sees the truth that there is no ultimate truth.
1
1
Per the definition of pragmatism, he/she sees thought as “an instrument for prediction/problem solving."
1
A fundamentalist believes that one story fundamentally explains/predicts. He/she doesn’t use thought and instead relies on a dogma.
1
My confusion is that both are narratives that explain the truth about how the world works.
1
Both are stories, with different theories/assumptions. Both have dogmas.
1
So a person who thinks there are only small stories is a fundamentalist as much as someone who believes there is one big story.
3
A story that isn't aware of the limits of its universalism is Newtonian, one that subverts its own universalist tendencies is relativist
1
2
If it helps relabel y-axis as canon-centered vs decentered. Polycentricity is a bug in canon, feature in decentered.


