JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for ARCH-THEORY Archives


ARCH-THEORY Archives

ARCH-THEORY Archives


ARCH-THEORY@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARCH-THEORY Home

ARCH-THEORY Home

ARCH-THEORY  January 1999

ARCH-THEORY January 1999

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: arch-theorists' Lament

From:

Martin Byers <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Mon, 25 Jan 1999 12:09:43 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (106 lines)

Chris Lees wrote:

> Hello  John,
>
> > I don't know about its meaning, but Heisenberg argued that
> > we change the world merely by observing.  His model has yet
> > to be invalidated, even though some of the movers and shakers
> > of logical positivism - Carl Popper to name one - was very
> > unhappy with the implications.  In _The Logic of Scientific
> > Discovery_ he assumes that "a photon" must have a single
> > path while dicussing the double slit experiment.  This of
> > course has nothing to do with arch archaeology however.
>
> Yes, I'm  familiar  with  what  Heisenberg  had  to  say,
> and  Popper (who  is  mostly  wrong, in  my  opinion, although
> I  quite  like  his  statement " We  never  know  what  we  are
> talking  about ".),
> but  my  line  of  thought  was  not  toward  quantum  physics,
> but  toward  archaeology.
>
> Fundamental, is  interpretation  of  evidence.
>
> Your  knowledge  emerges  out  of a dynamic  context of  background
> knowledge, the  matrix  of  language, shared  meanings, and individual
> experiences. That is what you bring to the evidence.
> This is the frame within which interpretation  occurs.
>
> More  broadly, that  is  your ' world ', your ' reality '.
>
> What  I  meant  when  I  wrote:
>
> > Is  it  true  to  say, that  merely observing  something, thinking
> > about something, brings  change to its meaning ?
> >
> > In  other  words, we  alter ' the  world ', just  by  attending  to  it ?
>
> was  something  like  the  idea  that  merely  focussing  attention
> upon  some  aspect  of ' reality ' can  change  its  meaning.
>
> So, we  are  changeing  the  'world'  by  directing  serious  attention
> to  it ?
>
> Obviously, I  don't  mean ' altering  its  physical  character  as  with
> a  pick  and  shovel or  a  bulldozer '.
>
> I'm  trying  to  get  at  something  deeper.
> The  world  'is'  whatever  it  means  to  us, whatever  we  think  it  is.
> (Mostly, what  we  have  been  told  it  is.)
>
> But  if  you  study  an  artefact, or  an  aspect  of  the  world, its
> meaning  changes. Is  this  just  the  natural  and  inevitable  result
> of  focussing  attention  and  interest ?
>

Chris,

    I think we have discussed this before. I suppose that observing the world
can change it. For examply, controlled observation via experimentation is a
classic example of this. But even passive observation is a physical process and
certainly if you are part of the world that you observe then the organic aspect
of your processes of observation (hearing, seeing, smelling) is responding to
the sensory inputs as causes so that you are being changed and, therefore, as
part of the world, the world is being changed. But you are raising a different
issue.
    As you say, "The  world  'is'  whatever  it  means  to  us, whatever  we
think  it  is. (Mostly, what  we  have  been  told  it  is.)
    But  if  you  study  an  artefact, or  an  aspect  of  the  world, its
meaning  changes. Is  this  just  the  natural  and  inevitable  result of
focussing  attention  and  interest ?"
    First, I would ammend your assertion "the world 'is' whatever it means to
us..." by saying "our experiencing of the world is whatever it means to us ..."
By shifting the focus to our attending itself  - which is your question -
rather than the objects to which we are attending, then we find the true locus
of meaning. In this way it then becomes quite understandable how we can change
our understanding of the world simply by attending to it (again) while the
world of its physical aspects to wich we are attending remain unchanged. I see
this as distinguishing between how observation - as a causal process in the
world - can change the world while the changing of our understandings of this
world do not. The understandings - the meanings - are cognitive properties so
they reside in the world only by residing in us. When speaking about how a new
discovery in science, i.e., a change in our understanding of the world, changes
the world, then, we have to insert the subject here and point out that that
aspect of the world that is changing is our collective experience of the world.
The world was just as round before this was discovered and the changing of our
understanding of the form of the world did not change that form one bit.
    With regard to the artefact, we can change our understanding of the
artefact without at all changing the artefact itself. Similarly, we do not
change the meanings of the artefact as held by those prehistoric subjects who
were responsible for it - since they are dead. Hopefully, of course, the change
in our experiencing of the artefact might be closer in correspondence to the
way the prehistoric users experienced it. I am not saying this, however, in
order to claim that our goals should be simply to produce a facsimile of the
understandings of the users. But if we are to understand the social and
material conditions that brought this artefact into existence, we first have to
understand it in these emic terms.
    That is the way I see it.

Regards,


Martin Byers



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
September 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
July 2006
May 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager