carlos, francesco, terry, ken, and chuck, +++
to perturb the certainty with which carlos rephrases terry's equally certain articulations in the english language that
"You throw the rock. The window gets broken. The window is breakable. You did it. You have the volution to do it. Etc."
you could also say that the window glass was destined to be broken and the rock fulfilled its destiny
you could also say the window afforded being broken and invited someone to throw the rock
you could also say that the one who tossed the rock had no intention to destroy the window, it was an accident
you could also say that the thrower's anger against the window made him throw the rock
you could also say that someone told him to throw the rock into the window
you could also say that the one who threw the rock didn't see the glass in the window opening,
you could also say that the window broke in anticipation of the rock coming
etc.
i have read all of these ways of attributing, denying, diverting, or inverting agency in various forms, for example
blaming the rape victim
excusing someone for what s/he did for reasons of being temporary insane
describing products as attractive, messages as compelling. etc.
explaining a successful robbery because the robber had a gun.
etc.
we shouldn't confuse facts with customary ways of explaining why something happens.
i prefer to distinguish attributing agency to humans or processes where decisions are involved and leave causality to where it is not. i prefer to hold people accountable for what they do, not the rocks they set in motion.
these are not facts but preferences
klaus
-----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 Carlos Pires
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 1:38 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Agents and agency
On 02/10/2014, at 17:32, Terence Love wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
>
> Thanks for your message.
>
> You wrote,
> 'if you throw a rock at a window and the glass breaks, it breaks
> regardless of how you spell it. You can say something like "rock
> window" or "rock breaks window" or "I broke the window because I threw
> a rock aimed straight at it."
> The latter just conveys more information about the phenomenon. It
> doesn't make it happen. '
>
> Good so far, and then you wrote,
>
> 'Actors, agents, actants... the traits are there before you put names
> on them.'
>
> ???
>
> Hmm? Is that what you really meant to say?
Hi Terry,
Yes.
I will try to make myself more clear:
What I mean is that the causality, the relations and the linearity of action is already there, in reality, before you come up with the concepts of "action", "actor", "subject", "object", "verb", "noun", "adjective", whatever.
You throw the rock. The window gets broken. The window is breakable. You did it. You have the volution to do it. Etc.
I can come up and say "You broke the window on purpose because you threw a rock at it."
A Riau native speaker can come up and say "You rock window."
You choose which is epistemological healthier.
Best regards,
==================================
Carlos Pires
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
-------------------------------------------------------------
Design & New Media MFA // Communication Design PhD Student @ FBA-UL
Check the project blog:
http://thegolemproject.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|