One way that the variety of pluralisms has been organized is by recognizing both ontological pluralism, the idea that there are many 'real' things, and epistemic pluralism, the idea that there are many 'knowledges' (systems of knowledge or ways of knowing). (..) The key to giving an adequate account of pluralism will begin with the actual experience of differences. (..) A good reason to be skeptical of the division between epistemic and ontological pluralism is that both kinds seem to be present in experience. (..) The experience of pluralism seems to contain elements of both plural knowledges and plural realities in a way that leads from epistemology to ontology and back. (..) The key to James’s assertion of pluralism is not a challenge to the possibility of connection, but a challenge to the denial of disconnection. (..) for James, things (whatever they might be) must be understood to be both connected to and disconnected from other things. The general claim that all is one must fail just as the claim that everything is independent must also fail. (..) Contrary to James’s pluralism, thingness itself seems to be a mode of connection that is universal. (..) Peirce’s pragmatic maxim: 'Our idea of anything is our idea of its sensible effects' (..) things are not independently what they are, but are what they are in the context of their interactions (connections and disconnections) with other things. (..) pluralism can be seen as a focus on the 'flights'. the interactions between things. (..) it is our very experience of these differences that can provide the means to understand and coexist with other people and their worlds. (..) While epistemic and ontological pluralisms mark aspects of human experience, pluralism is better understood as a matter of what lies between, the boundaries that mark interaction and the possibility of growth and change. |