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]
>