Print

---

Dear Norm,

I trust this gets to you and the list.

While I can agree about the general features of rationality, as she be seen in
the West, I am concerned that the real urgency is disguised in a quick resort
to polarities. That is, the ancient Greeks were on to something when they grew
near the fire of rationality - there are things that can be located within a
relationship - the fixity, or the fascination with fixity may have led up dark
pathways such that root 2 is a problem of irrationality (surd=sounds wrong
hence absurd). This point either leads to a deeper fascination as in the case
of musicians who quite love this stuff, denial as in the case of many trivial
commentators,  see The Ascent Of Man,  by J. Bronowski, or indifference as in
the case of most Eastern views. The general quest, as frequently revived, that
animated the ancients, I suggest, is best described in Freud's project: where
the ID was there shall the EGO be - or, in plain English: where the IT was
there shall I be found. This then moves (in an earlier and more comprehensive
form), through Hegel, in the form of the dialetic relationship between the self
and other/object. The initial stages of denial, where the self is held over
against the other/object need to be gone beyond. This is done through a giving
over of the self to the object as the mediation of self. In a similar vein and
time to Hegel, William Blake was announcing a similar project - in Blake's case
the account of the connections between rationality and creativity are explored,
a dynamic moments in the growth of the soul towards knowledge of the active
imagination. Aspects of the passive/active imagination can be found in the
Korean distinction between the tiger and the dragon - tigers react and are
therefore inherently passive - dragons pro-act and are therefore active.

A bit of salt in the damper.

all the best

keith
-------------------------------------------Norm Sheehan wrote:

> Hi Johann
>
> This discussion is great, sadly many questions are not being posted on the
> discussion list it seems...I am only getting answers to unposted
> questions...anyway to address the subject.
>
> i believe that Fairclough has been misrepresented to a degree, critical
> discourse analysis would propose that the position of a group or individual
> in relation to a discourse is a key to the definition of a dominant
> discourse/hegemony...relations of power and power struggles are the means
> by which discourses and societies shape each other (according to
> Fairclough). His view of hegemony/leadership therefore would best be
> interpreted as a critical analysis...those positioned inside the dominant
> discourse (a hegemony) see their acts as leadership (good for all) and
> those positioned outside see it as oppression (not good for us) with ranges
> of agreement/compliance/complicity in between.
>
> Once we introduce the concept of rationality we enter a discourse with a
> long history and many traditional paradigm orientations based in west
> European culture and history...this immediately places the discourse in a
> position of dominance in relation to many other groups of people.
>
> The proposal of 'a rational' immediately creates a dualism (as most
> European concepts do) and inherently determines that some are
> irrational...this whole debate is becoming fairly meaningless in light of
> the basis of this discourse in abstract systems of knowing (eg.
> mathematics) that have determined that irrational relations provide a basis
> for understanding the generative and emergent properties of life
> (complexity theory and fractal geometry).
>
> What is most surprising for those outside this dominant discourse is that
> these abstract 'irrational' conceptions of being in the world are well
> known to them as real and rational elements of Indigenous traditions (see
> African art and fractal geometry, Blackfoot physics, Dreaming ecology etc).
>
> What can be learned from the discourse of rationality is that the modern
> origin of European Rationality (Locke, Coombs etc) is inherently linked
> with concepts of natural order and social Darwinism which defined women,
> the poor (not noble of blood) and people of other races as irrational. As a
> consequence understanding power relations and dominance in a discourse
> (hegemony) is vital in this context... especially if we take note of Jerome
> Burner's dictum that social conceptions of order do not die out...they
> change form, lie dormant but remain as subtle determinants for action that
> can arise on instigation as powerful forces in a social group.
>
> The proposal of a 'rationality' within a design discourse may therefore be
> interpreted as the enactment of a certain power relation of values for
> design.
> Within an industrial/commercial context production values would certainly
> predominate but I don't believe that this is an issue that negatively
> impinges on creativity. For example a preconception of usefulness that is
> applied to creative exploration as a production value (when essentially it
> is a preproduction constraint) can be a positive influence.
>
> Sternberg and Lubart and others who evaluate creativity as a contextual
> event state that these obstacles are an important element in achieving
> creativity because constraints are challenges that can spur creative people
> on. Also divergent thinking plays a key role in many explanations… so
> limitation, creativity and dissent often go hand in hand whatever the
> context because this is the nature of the process.
>
> The question that arises for me is, does creativity equate to simple
> problem solving or is it more concerned with exploration & generation and
> then solution/problem matching. Which begs another question, are we
> discussing creativity at all?
>
> In reality this seems to be a process design issue that essentially must
> involve the creation of a FIT between creativity and context, as is stated
> by Johann, but this is also suggests a production methodology that can
> greatly limit organisational creative responsiveness. Many studies cover
> this topic and I am currently completing research that will help me to
> answer this in my own way…but I have not got an answer for this one…and it
> may not be possible to answer at all.
>
> I think the way that we define creativity is determined by the social
> discourse in which we engage with creative acts and the origin of our
> cultural orientation to creativity…(& what we use creativity for). Design
> research methodology will be required to address the creative discourse in
> a context and accept that these concepts (& definitions) live and grow with
> the groups and individuals that employ them if it is to generate knowledge.
> Therefore understanding the dominant discourse/Hegemony in relation to
> theory/creativity in a context is a vital issue and a key research area for
> design PhD/s.
>
> Notions of inspiration and talent presuppose an origin for creativity that
> is 'other', outside normal living/being…it may equally be true that
> creativity is a constant in our living/being and we have devised social
> structures to limit it in acceptable ways, and we are then surprised when
> some of it gets through. I believe emergence theories support that the
> latter is the most probable and therefore believe that creativity commands
> reverence not definition.
>
> Norm
>
> [log in to unmask]
> Norman Sheehan
> Senior Research Officer
> Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit
> University of Queensland
> Brisbane Old 4072 Australia



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