I would never have thunk it possible: Terry's slowly heading Deleuzian!
Hope springs!
:D
(Sense is grounded in non-sense, after all... a multiplicity of processes
interplaying, grounded in the genetics (in the older sense of the word, not
DNA) of the system... and the idea of the unified self being the one
illusion Kant resiled from exposing...)
~Adam
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Keith Russell <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Terry
>
> I am pleased that you allow a Damasio style of argument which escapes the
> charge of mentalism.
>
> I'm not sure we need another word - we simply need to allow that world can
> mean all the world while also meaning, in some contexts, the world as a
> construct of consciousness. The ontological solution allows for
> epistemological accounts - the biological is then a setting for the
> epistemological.
>
> cheers
>
> keith
>
> >>> Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> 14/11/10 3:16 PM >>>
> Hi Keith,
> Thanks for your message.
> Your response illustrates why I said that position depends on a mentalist
> assumption.
> The explanation assumes that there is a person that is aware.
> In real life, the ethics and worldview processes actually work well enough
> on a biological basis without any need to assume humans as being/having a
> conscious identity.
> The split is whether you assume that being human is 'about the self
> awareness/consciousness/thinking in the head/ self conscious feelings', or
> whether you see those aspects of being human as relatively trivial
> secondary superficial phenomena and that the main explanations (of things
> like ethics and worldview ) have to work, like the biology does, mostly
> without making those assumptions. I.e take an ethological viewpoint on this
> If you take the biological/ethological view and assume
> thinking/consciousness./self awareness/self-conscious feelings are
> secondary
> froth in being human, and that the animal biological functioning is most of
> the game, then the biological/ethological basis for ethics and worldview
> has the mechanisms of ethics (and aesthetics) prior to worldview.
> The exception is if you redefine 'worldview' as the whole functionality -
> the emotional response in Damasio's model - of the human animal. If so,
> then
> it needs a better term.
> 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: Sunday, 14 November 2010 11:51 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Responsible design practice in groups of design practitioners
>
> dear Terry,
>
> I can agree, in terms of a logical sequence that one might become aware of
> the possibility of yes/no prior to becoming aware that one has a world
> view.
> But, I must already have a primitive world view such that yes/no is a
> feature of such a world in order to apply a yes/no decision.
>
> So, I can agree with the usefulness of your observation, but I can also
> assert that a world view is implicit even in the case of pre-conscious
> decisions. The fact that we might not bother with philosophy until we have
> an elaborated world view doesn't mean there isn't a world view implicit in
> every cognitive event.
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Keith
>
>
> >>> Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> 14/11/10 3:08 AM >>>
> Dear Cay and Jody,
>
> You say <snip> ... worldview is more fundamental than ethics. Worldviews,
> paradigms or epistemological positions determine ethical points of view, as
> well has how we put our positions into practice. <endsnip>
>
> This is a limited assumption only valid if you take a mentalist or similar
> perspective.
>
> On a more real and less cognitive front, one of the interesting biological
> systems of organisms, including humans, is that which enables an organism
> to
> take multiple inputs and convert them to a single output: a yes/no or
> do/do
> not or like/dislike .
>
> This fundamental biological process is the essence and basis of ethics.
> It
> is not dependent on thinking, conscious cognition, or theoretical
> constructs.
>
> The ability to biologically convert multiple inputs into a single output
> as 'ethical' decisions, the ability to biologically create the 'yes/no from
> multiple inputs, is what provides the core underlying human processes by
> which it is possible to make the judgements necessary to build a
> 'worldview'.
>
> Hence from ethological and other biological, or even 'design and emotion'
> perspectives, the human ability to do ethics is more fundamental than the
> human ability to have a worldview. From these perspectives, the findings is
> opposite of what you suggest.
>
> Best wishes,
> Terry
>
--
Adam Parker
Senior Lecturer, Games Design (Melbourne)
Qantm College Pty Ltd (Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne)
235 Normanby Road
South Melbourne VIC 3205
Tel. +61 (03) 8632 3450
Fax. +61 (03) 8632 3401
Email: [log in to unmask]
Web: http://melbourne.qantm.com
CRICOS Numbers: 02689A (QLD), 02852F (NSW), 02837E (VIC)
|