Dear Klaus,
I agree with your comments about "false" consciousness - this is not to suggest that the problems cannot be fixed.
the issues are well worked out in phenomenology - but this will get us into the arena of "intentionality" - as often happens on the list, a major philosophical issue is raised at a tangent in a practical way. The aim seems to be to use everyday terms to solve everyday problems. You are right to point out the easy looking that hides difficult and major questions.
all the best
keith russell
newcastle OZ
>>> klaus krippendorff <[log in to unmask]> 09/06/03 02:43 AM >>>
assuming this to be so, the issue of false consciousness arises
(1) when someone (with an impliciy claim to superior consciousness) judges
someone else (with a supposedly inferior consciousness, inferior because he
or she cannot judge hos or her consciousness) to have a consciousness that
is false
(2) and when that judger denies having made a judgment and claims this to be
indisputably true in fact.
i find that obnoxious. nobody (knowingly) has a false consciousness
i am suggesting that everyone's consciousness is what it is: consciousness.
(frankly, i am not even sure exactly what consciousness means but take it to
be a summary term for what one understands or how one approaches the world).
at any one moment it is taken to be correct, true, the only thing that one
has to go by.
if it turns out later, and only in retrospect, that one's consciousness got
one into trouble, if one made a mistake, goes on a wrong start, makes an
unworking assumption and explains one's trouble in terms of the difference
between one's past consciousness and one's present consciousness, in other
words, in terns of having learned something since, then one can say that
one's past consciousness was false (i would prefer a more moderate word)
relative to one's current consciousness.
but who is to say whether one's current consciousness will turn out to be
false at some later point in time?
i like the suggestion that there is no false sketch -- except of one has a
criteria against which its truth, accuracy, or use can be measured
does anyone have a lead to Aristotle's law?
klaus
klaus krippendorff
gregory bateson term professor for cybernetics, language, and culture
the annenberg school for communication
university of pennsylvania
3620 walnut street
philadelphia, pa 19104.6220
phone: 215.898.7051 (O); 215.545.9356 (H)
fax: 215.898.2024 (O); 215.545.9357 (H)
usa
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhDs in Design
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Keith Russell
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 3:44 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Design Learning - was false consciousness
Dear Chris
I think we can have a "false" sketch when we talk about a "false start" -
that is, in getting engaged, we have strategies that help us tune our
instruments (devices for providing structure).
I am happy with brain storms and lateral thinking exercises when they are
looked at this way - that is, a gestures towards engagement.
When we align any of our mediations (structured actions) with intent, the
the falsehood quickly looks like inauthenticity. If we shift to the strong
mode of intention (all acts of consciousness are intentional) then we can
allow that we often gesture wrong to proceed correctly - we need something
to correct to feel confident that we are now on the path - this missing
aspect shows up in mechanical objects that lack positive feedback - how to
know which gear I am in if there is no wrong position?
Mature artists/designers/humans can show real style in how they make these
false starts.
good topic.
keith russell
newcastle OZ
>>> Chris Heape <[log in to unmask]> 09/05/03 17:33 PM >>>
Dear Norm,
On the false consciousness thread you asked:
..." can there be a false sketch in the same way there may be false
consciousness?.."
|