Hi Keith,
Thanks for your message.
I still see the idea of cathexis as irrelevant or at least spurious.
I'm assuming the primary entity for agency and all forms of human
functioning is the human body and that the personality, sense of self,
ability to think consciously, language and feel are secondary artefacts of
evolutionary development generated in the moment leading to an illusion of
self. In other words, I'm suggesting as I've said many times before that
most of what humans do is determined by our bodies and that pure agency of
self is an furphy. In other words, the body has already processed the
decision to do something (and made the decision) on evolutionary response
grounds before that decision outcome comes into consciousness and is remade
so that we can postrationalise that we (i.e. the person that calls
themselves Keith or Terry) believes that our conscious self made the
decision.
In the case of 'cathexis's investment'. Cathexis assumes that it is the
individual who does the investing. The body just does what it does and we
have the illusion of self and the illusion that we made that investment.
Hence, cathexis is irrelevant.
Or are you using cathexis in a different way from the dictionary defn??
Cheers,
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Keith
Russell
Sent: Saturday, 26 September 2009 1:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: FW: On design - again?
Dear Terry,
cathexis is a biological condition/process - so, you are taking account of
it, just restricting it to what you don't want to talk about : that is,
talking.
you might want to raise the issue of hyper-cathexis but that would be
conditioned by the presumption of a prior biological cathexis.
cheers
keith
>>> Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> 25/09/09 4:18 PM >>>
Hi Keith,
Actually, I don't go that path at all and cathexis is irrelevant.
I'm assuming consciousness , sense of self, thinking and language use are
secondary phenomena as is the ability to design.
The biology points to most aspects of human functioning preceding and
determining moment by moment how we design, language and think. We can
function without using the latter. Hence it doesn't make sense to develop a
theory about how we design primarily in terms of these secondary phenomena
that are all using the same biological substrates..
Cheers,
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Keith
Russell
Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 6:29 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: On design - again?
Dear terry
ah, for the luxury of pre-consciousness? (or please hit me on the head with
a large spanner)
If it (anything) is brought to consciousness then it is of consciousness and
hence it is found in the structure of a language. The fact that people
maintain primitive forms of grammar / syntax about visual stuff simply
indicates that it is possible to stop the flow of symbolic exchanges - I
prefer the flow and the flow aggregates as decision trees that are then
available in secondary symbolic forms etc.
Why the cathexis and why the de-cathexis? Call it self-symbolic or whatever.
The process is that of a language exchange.
cheers
keith
|