 |
 |
Dear Klaus, Negative consciousness is simply a fuller description of consciousness such that consciousness is aware, in being aware, of what it is not being aware of. That is, in being aware of the chair I am not being aware of the table. It this were not the case then how would my attention ever shift and how would I ever come to know that which I was aware of? Unless chairs are different to tables and everything else in the universe (to consciousness), how could I discern a chair? It is unfortunate, as the OED points out, that the word "false" in English, has come to mean negative moral things - just as "negative" has come to mean "bad" and "positive" to mean "good". We have to use French words to mean deliberately not real/true but not morally bad. "false consciousness" in relation to "inauthenticity" which is where this thread started, is best found in the examples offered by John Paul Sartre in Being and Nothingness - the waiter at the cafe is not a waiter but merely plays the role of a waiter - he does so knowingly and consciously may set out to play up to the role such that he becomes a better waiter. Heidegger would allow that he may, after inspection of his role, find himself authenticly as a waiter - but to do so he would need to overcome the false consciousness of simply being a waiter. We can see this as a moral judgment of a superior consciousness or as the dynamic of consciousness itself. Several more dreaded philosophers in there. all the best keith >>> klaus krippendorff <[log in to unmask]> 09/12/03 15:05 PM >>> i don't know why you, keith, bring a new twist into the discussion: "positive" consciousness. what then is negative consciousness? true, "false consciousness" is meant to be denegrating. from my more dialogical perspective, the nounphrase suggests to name a fact while diverting attention from the situation in which it is uttered, a situation in which a "superior" mind judges an "inferior mind. using the term "false consciousness" says more about who the user of this term assumes to be then about what it describes klaus klaus krippendorff gregory bateson term professor for cybernetics, language, and culture the annenberg school for communication university of pennsylvania 3620 walnut street philadelphia, pa 19104.6220 phone: 215.898.7051 (O); 215.545.9356 (H) fax: 215.898.2024 (O); 215.545.9357 (H) usa -----Original Message----- From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhDs in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Keith Russell Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 12:02 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Aristotle's Principle of Non-Contradiction -- reply to KlausKrippendorff Dear Klaus I don't mind the Aristotle and your perspective on Aristotelian understandings of a positive consciousness. The notion of "false consciousness" is post -Kantian in the sense that it requires a reflection on consciousness - that is, it is a negative account. Hearclitus is raised by Aristotle in relation to the fragment that talks about God both permitting herself to be callled "god" and not allowing herself to be called "god" - that is, that all positive states of consciousness are underwritten by negative states - which will lead ultimately to the dreaded HEGEL and negative dialectics and a presumption that consciousness is about things which are held in a negative realtionship (the state of not being finished even if the act might be deemed a FACT and hence become, in time, positive). Cybernetics is positive? all the best keith >>> klaus krippendorff <[log in to unmask]> 09/12/03 13:34 PM >>> this is what aristotle said (translated of course): This, then, is the most certain of all principles, .... For it is impossible for any one to believe the same thing to be and not to be, as some think Heraclitus says. For what a man says, he does not necessarily believe; and if it is impossible that contrary attributes should belong at the same time to the same subject (the usual qualifications must be presupposed in this premiss too), and if an opinion which contradicts another is contrary to it, obviously it is impossible for the same man at the same time to believe the same thing to be and not to be; so nobody can have a false consciousness -- consciousness taken to be aware of one's beliefs. "false consciousness" is the assessment by observers who by applying the very attribute of "false consciousness" to observed others deny them their own cognitive ability and place themselves in a (god-like) epistemological position above the observed others. so, let's not use such constructions on each other and respect the cognitive autonomy of others even if they are lying (perhaps for their own reasons) or if we don't agree with them. klaus klaus krippendorff gregory bateson term professor for cybernetics, language, and culture the annenberg school for communication university of pennsylvania 3620 walnut street philadelphia, pa 19104.6220 phone: 215.898.7051 (O); 215.545.9356 (H) fax: 215.898.2024 (O); 215.545.9357 (H) usa -----Original Message----- From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhDs in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Ken Friedman Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 12:17 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Aristotle's Principle of Non-Contradiction -- reply to Klaus Krippendorff Dear Klaus, You are probably seeking Aristotle's principle of non-contradiction. It appears somewhere in The Organon, but I am not sure where. He also defends the law in The Metaphysics. The principle is a rule of Aristotelian logic stating that something cannot both be and not be at the same time in the same respect. Rather than stating that someone CAN not contradict himself, Aristotle states that we MAY or SHOULD not contradict ourselves if our statements are to be meaningful or logical. Together with the law of identity and the law of the excluded middle, the law of non-contradiction constitutes the laws of thought that many logicians and philosophers define as the foundation of valid logical inference. (I'm not defending every element of this statement, but answering your question in terms of Aristotelian logic. For example, the challenge that fuzzy logic provides to the law of the excluded middle accounts for the furor that fuzzy logic occasions in some circles. Similarly, Korzbsky's non-Aristotelian logics also created some fuss on similar principles.) If I can locate my Organon or my Metaphysics in the dramatically non-excluded middle of my study, I will report on the exact location of Aristotle's discourses on these topics. Yours, Ken -- Klaus Krippendorff wrote, "along this thread, aristotle is supposed to have put forth a law saying that you can't contradict yourself. i consider this to be correct but wonder if anyone knows the name of that law or has a reference for me to check this out." -- -- Ken Friedman, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design Department of Leadership and Organization Norwegian School of Management Visiting Professor Advanced Research Institute School of Art and Design Staffordshire University