De-Re-CONSTRUCT

 "Can we devise another powerful descriptive tool that deals this time with
matters of concern and whose import then will no longer be to debunk but
to protect and to care, as Donna Haraway would put it? Is it really possible
to transform the critical urge in the ethos of someone who adds reality to
matters of fact and not subtract reality? To put it another way, what’s the
difference between deconstruction and constructivism?"


   Language and the ability to create new ideas and beliefs or proof of something as matter of fact is something that is one of the most exciting things to tackle and I could write a whole book on the matter, no pun intended. Not necessarily that my opinion and matters would be correct or accurate but they would be based on what I think, know, have created etc.


 I think that the cycle in which creation and construction happens really can relate to this idea that Latour is talking about in this passage. WHAT is the difference between deconstruction and constructivism??


I truly believe that what this is getting at is that through destruction, a new creation is formed and vise versa with all construction deconstruction is inevitable when change comes, It seems that although we would like to believe our world, society, culture is always growing, I think that that when you look at it in a different unique way we can establish the circular form just as culture and science and the tie or connection.


What we believe it is important to dissect, as always we like to trace it back as culture studies through nature or nurture, and also follow it up with science and other forms of 'evidence'. I found this article to be extremely moving in the way that it really hits it on target for the reasons of why we even want to know where fact and why fact and validation simply for anything we know. 


That brings me into this passage again. The tool of concern and why? To protect and to care... where do all of these ideas come from in the first place, who decided what reality is? I don't know whether this is an answer to any of these or if the answer like it always is is the question of whether or why you believe it in the first place. I don't really know how to place what my major idea behind how I feel about this. Is it weird that one little passage could make me question myself over and over and over? I don't know what is true or what is false, and yet are true and false opposites or are they created to make up for the lake of something else?


The battle, we will never be able to figure it out. This struggle of science and culture. How they create each other and form each other and which one really adds to the other one or takes away from the opposite. Our beliefs and actions and facts of matter or concern are all made up from ideas in which we can't decide where they came from. Why does science, and experiment make anything accurate? Why can't someone idea without any evidence simple be enough? And how is a book such as a bible something that so many people will surround themselves around and believe in and look up and worship higher than something that was written by someone else and why do we believe that it isn't just bs as we do with others. There are so many questions I could keep posing such as this that I feel really tie in Latour and the article. I don't know how to answer any of them.. and ALL I can do is create more questions and have feelings based off of those. Construction or deconstruction or reconstruction or reinforcement or destruction or anything.. it's a cycle and that's all I can really confirm.