 |
 |
I see this discussion (before practice was added) as akin to the debate between "realism" and "idealism" in the sense that people take sides and then find it nearly impossible to see that there could even be another side (listen to Richard Dawkin ridiculing anyone who does not agree with him, as a terrible example). In part this is because the taking of sides seems to affect the sort of arguments we accept and make. In cybernetic systems, which are essentially circular in form, it becomes impossible to distinguish the controller from the controlled. Each is controller to the other. Control is a circular action that can be thought of as being located here, or there, but which I now think of as not really being located at one point or another at all, but as existing in the circle, between, shared, mutual. Learning from this understanding, I came to prefer not to take the position that design skill, knowledge, and action (the designing) should be located in the human or in the technology/machine, but as shared. Just as I will happily accede that when I converse with another (at which time my communication is circular), any intelligence is neither mine not my conversational partner's, but comes from our conversation, I will accept that if there seems to be creativity or imagination resulting from my action with my computer, or a book, of paper and pencil, or a colleague, then the creativity and intelligence come about through the action of both together in a circle. So I don't see why we go on with this discussion. For me, the understanding that makes sense is not that one drives the other, but that both work together. This is the meaning of a system: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Ranulph