Dear terry,
in our reporting about our thinking, we are required, in the case of English, to utter such thinks as "I think" -- which might be construed as a privileging of the self and the consciousness of a self.
However, other than the logically positive moment in time whereby an activity takes place in consciousness (that is, a thought occurred), consciousness is typified by negative or analytical processes. That is, when I announce the thought to a self (myself if you must), it is audited within a cycle of production (materialization) and reception -- and hence there are multiple moments and a self for each moment. If we negate the initial self (I had a thought) and allow that maybe it was someone else who had the though, in my thinking space (domain) then we have radically de-privileged not the thought (it still is a hard positive moment) but the soft positive moment that I had the thought. Thinking now becomes a passive event in which there is a non-I who apprehends that a non-I experienced a thought in a thinking space that a non-I is open to engaging with.
This is ok, and it is fun to do it - it's call detachment in Buddhism - for many people it is disturbing if not bordering on madness.
If one is interested mostly in the thinking process and not teh content then this is a great game.
If one is interested in the thought itself (content) then it is silly and a waste of energy. Yes, one can be interested in the content and not pay any attention, by way of reflection on the origin or purpose of the thought. This happens in the experience of "flow" which is enjoyed by many people.
cheers
not-Keith
>>> Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> 04/04/11 11:50 AM >>>
Dear Fil, Andy, Peter and all,
There is a temptation in making theory about this to over privilege
consciousness as the central process.
The obvious reason for this is human ego and selfishness as it is one's
thinking and consciousness and 'sense of self' that is making the case that
'it' (one's sense of self' as in 'consciousness' should be centre stage and
the most important way that any of these design related situations should be
viewed.
There is an alternative more meditative perspective that gives rise to a
better, simpler and more coherent body of design theory.
An alternative is to view consciousness, sense of self and sense of self
having feelings and thoughts as a secondary artificial construction created
in the moment by each body. This perspective gives primacy in the
explanation to human bodies and their processes as the primary basis for
understanding design activity.
Usefully, it then enables design theories to integrate and cohere with
research and theories about other organisms, many of whom exhibit similar
activities to those that underpin creating a design. Perhaps more
importantly, this moves the discussion away from self perceptions that seem
all so important to individuals yet are problematic and often false when
subject to critical review.
I suggest it is unhelpful to privilege self-perceptions and consciousness as
the basis for theories about design activity- even those about design
thinking or the use of designed objects and services.
Best wishes,
Terry
|