Michael:
You said: "I think (false consciousness) is very
relevant for anyone seeking to
validate reflective practice as a research method."
Why not focus directly on "reflective practice as a
research method". That would go a long way toward
defining "reflective practice" in operational terms in
a way that could be validated with regard to design.
Also, there appears to be two different threads that
are needlessly confusing the discussion: self
reflection and ways to validate ones own thoughts, and
understanding and counseling others regarding how they
apprehend and validate their thoughts. My point has
been that only the
subject(intention,content,context,etc)is different,
the ways of thinking about it are not.
False consciousness, it appears, is being put forward
as an objectivist construct with a Cartesian
contradiction: Descartes concluded that "reason can
reflect directly and successfully on its own nature
and is therefore in no need of the aid of empirical
research" (Lakoff, Philosophy in the Flesh, p397 )
Lakoff does a nice job of showing how this conclusion
is entirely dependent on the metaphors Descartes used
to build his philosophy of mind. Cognitive science has
made the point moot. What is left, it seems to me, is
that validation is always dependent on whatever theory
of mind (metaphorical construct) is operative in a
given situation.
Science has brought some underlying consistency to a
general model that can be correlated to design
thinking. (Burnette, C.H., 1998, Design: A Universal
Discipline for the Age of Information, in Design DK,
Danish Design Centre, Copenhagen) In my view, it is
this sort of model that can help define reflective
practice in operational terms.
Best regards,
Chuck
Dr. Charles Burnette
234 South Third Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Tel: +215 629 1387
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhDs
in Design
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Michael
A R Biggs
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 6:30 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: False Consciousness, Contradictions, and
Self-deception. --
Further Inquiry (2).
I am curious about the course this discussion has
taken.
While I admire Ken's ability to analyze and summarize
the threads that
occur on this list, I feel that the present summary
risks contradicting our
other [implicit] approaches to research. A lot of work
is in the public
domain in the fields of the philosophy of psychology
and psychology, on
false consciousness. When such work is available we
usually encourage
referencing rather than thinking the matter through
from scratch. Ken's
admirable summary seems like the sort of thing that
would be useful if
there were no work in the public domain on this
subject. Is there a reason
why the only references are to earlier correspondents?
I have already suggested Fingarette. I could also
suggest Wittgenstein (on
the ability to know one's internal states), and I
think others have already
cited Kierkegaard and Sartre.
May I add that I think the subject is very relevant
for anyone seeking to
validate reflective practice as a research method.
Michael
******************************************************
******
|