Dear All,
At the foundation of consciousness, we can say ³we² and mean equality.
That is, to form the category ³we² we must have the awareness of a self
and an other. Such is the condition of consciousness. That is, to be
conscious, is to be aware of something. That something can not be
consciousness itself, in that moment of consciousness. Yes, we can be
aware of our consciousness, after the event, reflectively.
This ³we of equality² can be observed, in the acquisition of language,
such that you can be aware that the child now, suddenly, knows that you
know he/she knows that you know they know.
Put slightly more directly: I know that you know that I know that you know.
This shared awareness constitutes a ³we². This ³we² is the ground of
language as communication. The fact that language itself belongs to
neither partner of the ³we² is a crucial, non political, grounding.
If my partner acknowledges, in the forming of the ³we² that neither they
nor I own language, or awareness, or the moment of the ³we², then we can
communicate.
If one or more persons makes claims to own the ³we², then we end up with
³we as family², ³we as cultural group², ³we as designers², ³we as
PhD-Design listers" etc.
Some of these ³we² constructions are useful in terms of the development
and maintenance of individuality/identity. All of them open up the space
where individuals (and groups) can become the outsider (the outsider must,
logically, be inside as part of a language ³we" in order to be outside
this particular political ³we² - see Camus¹ The Rebel).
This may seem like a cruel and lonely determination and not of much use
but it is where I mostly live.
Cheers
keith
On 30/06/2016, 1:27 AM, "PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD
studies and related research in Design on behalf of Ahmed Ansari"
<[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>It never ceases to amaze me when designers, the very people who validate
>their practice via epistemologies of lived human experience instead of
>from abstract a priori deductions about human nature from the comfort of
>ivory towers or controlled-for lab environments, use abstract arguments
>like "all men are equal" which in themselves have a history originating
>in eurocentric Enlightenment humanism - but then again, no one bothers to
>analyze such concepts and ideas within the kinds of histories and power
>relations they evolved from. I don't think any non-European political
>philosophy ever made such preposterous, universalizing statements as "we
>are all equal".
>
>Ahmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|