 |
 |
Klaus, Klaus (and others) -- You lovely man. You always say the right things. Until now. Perhaps the salient distinction is between behavior which is observable and behavior which is not. We sociologists define thinking as a behavior. It is, in fact, sometimes amazingly observable. In my work, I cannot prove, but I certainly argue that the ways we behave -- through the objects and people we maninipulate as well as through the actions our bodies exert -- directly reflect our thinking. The self-conscious intentionality of that thinking is another matter. Only in philosophy and design classes -- and treatises on socio-biology -- have I found people obsessing about intentionality. Oddly enough. (I include robotics in design, by the way.) Just as the dichotomy between thinking and feeling seems somehow arcane to me, as a sociologist, so does the dichotomy between thinking and acting. Thinking IS acting. Acting certainly reflects thinking -- at a more or less conscious level, with consciousness varying across time especially seen in the creation of habits and I am willing to put forth the argument that acting promotes thinking. And perhaps even (gasp) that acting constitutes thinking. And, despite my love of dead German philosophers, it was watching design students draw that made me think that. Christena Nippert-Eng, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Sociology Illinois Institute of Technology 312-567-6812 (phone) 773-288-4712 (fax) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%