Ethics of Response-Ability: Difference between revisions

From Knowledge-land-scape
Saskia (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Saskia (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:


Non-Indigenous researchers engaging any form of generative ontologies need to take responsibility for whichever option they choose:  
Non-Indigenous researchers engaging any form of generative ontologies need to take responsibility for whichever option they choose:  
 
''
1. engaging Indigenous scholarship, or  
1. engaging Indigenous scholarship, or  


2. not engaging Indigenous scholarship  
2. not engaging Indigenous scholarship  
 
''
Neither option is “innocent.” There are no "easy ways out".  
Neither option is “innocent.” There are no "easy ways out".  



Revision as of 10:06, 27 February 2025

You have encountered a “Great White Beast”, a fleeting, shapeshifting figure that performs the world as indeterminate.

The ethics involved when it comes to drawing from research paradigms that consider the world as indeterminate, intra-dependent and ontologically generative, cannot be resolved through ‘right’ ways of doing things.

Non-Indigenous researchers engaging any form of generative ontologies need to take responsibility for whichever option they choose: 1. engaging Indigenous scholarship, or

2. not engaging Indigenous scholarship Neither option is “innocent.” There are no "easy ways out".

In dealing with this Great White Beast, I have chosen to rely on a very selective body of western scholarship to formulate ways of thinking outside of the classic western subject/object divide and not appropriate Indigenous scholarship in formulating my own understanding of ontologically generative paradigms.

Where appropriate, I have placed my journey in dialogue with Indigenous scholarship.

"Return" to cut 3 to start tracing the Bearwatch project.

Return to Cut 3: Wayfaring the BearWatch Project