Dear Klaus,
Great post. Thanks.
You wrote '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'
I'm very happy with that position.
My previous posts were about validity and assumptions. To a large extent, I
was simply pointing out that the validity of various positions, theories
and assumptions couldn't be assumed as facts. As preferences, I can see
that people may chose to prefer particular positions. Ascribing truth to
them, especially when meta-analysis indicated problems, seemed to be going
too far.
Best regards,
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 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|