Dear Matthias,
Just a quick note to point out the first false dichotomy, a widely believed
scientific bogus/ myth:
The left-brain-right-brain theory finds no support in the wider
Neuroscience community. The brain's activities are never diametrically
opposed or evenly symmetrically split — the two cerebral brain spheres
function and act dynamically over the course of time, reciprocal, and
interdependently (as well as reciprocally interdependent). Operations of
smaller defective areas (in case of medical trauma) can be taken up by
other areas of the brain, even if their initial function differed.
I'd suggested discontinuing the use of debunked pop-science examples as a
whole. It is obvious that such harmful metaphors have shaped the way people
perceive each others' abilities and even how individuals view themselves.
They spread widely beyond (medical) academic circles and receive
surprisingly little scrutiny.
In my own work, I'm looking at complexity theory and (living) systems
theory, which I find useful in changing perspectives beyond the binary.
Best wishes,
Veronica
*Veronica Ranner*PhD Candidate
Royal College of Art
Kensington Gore, London
SW7 2EU
veronicaranner.com <http://www.veronicaranner.com/>
polyphonicfutures.com
+++ Come and join Design — Research — Making
<https://www.facebook.com/groups/707807112714580/>, a cross-institutional
exchange network for (young) design academics +++
+44 (0)7517 844163
[log in to unmask]
twitter.com/vroniranner
Am Di., 12. Feb. 2019 um 07:32 Uhr schrieb Mattias Arvola <[log in to unmask]
>:
> Dear all,
>
> I've been skimming through the last few days of posts over morning coffee
> and saw a pattern.
>
> Masculine – feminine
> Thinking with the right side of the brain – thinking with the left side of
> the brain
> Body – mind
> Holistic – fragmented
>
> All these dichotomies. What are they good for? We could regard them as
> some sort of scaffolding for thought. They impose a dimension for making
> distinctions. As such, they can be useful, but they are only one way of
> cutting the cake.
>
> The line we project for cutting the cake doesn’t make the dimension real.
> It does, however, allow us to reason along that line. The drawback is that
> it only allows us to reason along the line until someone suggests imposing
> another dimension, or line of reasoning.
>
> I was about to say that Lyotard was right, but then I realized that he
> also got caught in a dichotomy: the one between pluralism and consensus.
> But as we designers know, it can be both, as in the divergent and
> convergent processes.
>
> Please excuse my ramblings, but I guess I’m thinking while writing.
> Anyhow, my conclusion might tentatively be here that the dichotomies are
> imposed upon the phenomenon under study, and that they both guide the line
> of reasoning as well as constrict it. I appreciate Jinan's attempt to
> impose a new dimension by re-labeling and re-framing the masculine and the
> feminine.
>
> Best regards,
> // Mattias
> --
> Mattias Arvola, Ph.D., Docent
> Associate Professor of Cognitive Science
> Director of the Cognitive Science Bachelor’s Programme
> Department of Computer and Information Science
> Linköping University
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|