Agreed. But have you ever seen someone who, once they have identified a
category, clings to it with such tenacity that they can no longer think
creatively? We can abandon them (strict definitions) at will--with an
effort of will! I believe we are in agreement here.

Best regards,
Doug

........................................
Doug Lantry
The Ohio Historical Society
Statehouse Education and Visitors Center
Columbus, Ohio 
[log in to unmask]

On Tue, 26 May 1998, Peter Rebernik wrote:

> If we have categories we can abandon them at will. But first of all, we got
> to have them, even different ones.
> Peter, the Rebernik
> 
> +---------------------------------------------------
>  | PHAROS International - Bureau for Cultural Projects
>  | Peter Rebernik, Dipl.-Ing.
>  | Anton Baumgartnerstr. 44/C2/3/2; A-1230 Wien / AUSTRIA
>  | Tel.: (... 43 1) 667 7375; Fax: (... 43 1) 667 2984
>  | Mobiltel.: (... 43 664) 230 2767
>  | E-Mail: [log in to unmask]; Web: http://www.rebernik.at
> +------------------------------------------------------
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Doug Lantry <[log in to unmask]>
> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.museum-l
> An: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> Datum: Dienstag, 26. Mai 1998 20:15
> Betreff: Re: museum theory
> 
> 
> >Regarding categorization and its necessity--I think everyone would agree
> >that dividing reality into manageable pieces with useful definitions is
> >very, very helpful, even necessary, to the business of planning and
> >thinking, but...
> >
> >Please don't cancel the concept of flexibility of thought, of stretching,
> >amending, combining, manipulating definitions for the sake of creative
> >thought and creativity itself. Letting go of the rock of definition may
> >sometimes be scary, but it can also be very engaging. What I mean is don't
> >be afraid to question. (But don't be afraid to define, either!)
> >
> >It's kind of like periodization in history: useful and much-used, but
> >malleable in many useful respects. I say we sensibly operate with some
> >standard definitions, but not be afraid to entertain thoughts "outside the
> >box."
> >
> >I suppose this could easily transmogrify into "why history is not a
> >science." Eeek!
> >
> >Best to everyone,
> >Doug
> >
> >........................................
> >Doug Lantry
> >The Ohio Historical Society
> >Statehouse Education and Visitors Center
> >Columbus, Ohio
> >[log in to unmask]
> >
>