First ATD hatchet job

[David Morris]

I'm sure there are lots of thoughts re. your understandinh of
"History" below.  I don't know if you've read Mason & Dixon, but this
(what you said below, more or less) is a major theme in that book.

On 11/15/06, Daniel Julius <daniel.julius at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And secondly, I really bristle at this: "He believes in conspiracies, not histories."  Historiographically, I'm very interested in what we call history, and it seems like people kind of instinctively (ideologically) create a three-tier hierarchy of truthfulness -- veracity in descending order -- with Supposed Objective Truth (what *really* happened on top), followed by the Historical Record, followed lastly by Fiction (where conspiracies for this critic-feller are gonna lie, I'm sure).  But so Objective Truth is an unattainable construct, literally inaccessible immediately after it is completed, and so we have competing systems of representation with History against Fiction.  So what I think people like this dood forget is that both are representations, irrevocably divorced from historical truth, and therefore kind of on equal footing.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Dan