Discussion about this post

User's avatar
PYROGRAPHY JOURNAL's avatar

Derek, I've followed your work for years and find much to admire. But the book “Useful not True” gives me pause, and I think the reason is structural. Your entire framework operates on propositions — statements that can be reframed, inverted, tested for usefulness. That's a powerful tool inside language, but it heory juxtaposed and played around with. Lived visual experience doesn't arrive as a proposition and can't be corrected by substituting a better sentence. For those of us whose work and thinking are grounded in the non-verbal, or who live inside cultures like Japan where you are expected to "read the air" — a culture that subtly suggests rather than says — your epistemology feels like a map drawn entirely from the inside of a library. The territory it describes is without blood, and only a fraction of the territory that exists. It's the wisdom of somebody who lives almost entirely inside language — which means it's wisdom with a significant blind spot built into its foundation.

And from that perspective, "choose the belief that is useful to you" becomes hard to defend: useful to whom, and for what?

No posts

Ready for more?