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

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@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

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  August 2009

PHD-DESIGN August 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Who Designs?

From:

Ben Matthews <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Ben Matthews <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:35:11 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (161 lines)

I can see we're at an impasse. I just want to take up a few points of the
many where we seem to disagree, and then I'll retire. You're welcome to have
the last word.

On 8/17/09 10:41 PM, "jeremy hunsinger" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
--snip--
> Almost all languages have a built in model
> of person or group of people/family'  In english, the structure i/me/
> you/they, etc. indicate elements of the theory of the person embedded
> in the language.  The system of reference beyond referring to people
> also has implications for what a person is, so I'd say yes, the
> structure of a language has an implicit theory of a person.  Now there
> is probably debate, as there always is, but people don't have to
> believe this for it to be the case, nor does disbelief seem to
> disprove it, the evidence either fits into your model of language and
> people or it doesn't.
>
> Seems to be part of the basis of linguistic anthropology doesn't it?

The 'structure' of language only has an implicit theory of persons if you
take the 'surface' appearances of language--it's public uses in our
lives--and read a theory back into them. But this is to take language use as
a document of something deeper, something hidden. But there is nothing to
point to in order to confirm the existence of the 'deeper' theory than the
observable practices in which language has a use. So you take the observable
as evidence for the existence of something unobservable (and contentious).
But your certainty of the existence of what is hidden can only be less
certain that what we can all see, know and use. I'm recommending we can
choose to stop subliming language in this way. There doesn't need to be
anything 'under' the 'surface'. That's the point.

> Language is not just for use.   language is part of identity and
> subjectivity.

Let's not create a caricature of use. Identity and subjectivity are
practices, too.

> some languages can likely be used only for use, but
> I've never seen one.

So language has other uses than its uses? :-)

>>
>> When I say something like 'Harry thinks Whitehead was a genius', I'm
>> not
>> making an empirical claim that has anything to do with Harry's brain
>> states
>> or processes.
>
> I'd think you are making an empirical claim there.
--snip--
> I tend to doubt that the neuroscientific tests are any more or less
> empirical than harries expressions.
>

My original point of departure was your identification of intentions with
brain states. Naturally, claims about the world are defeasible, and
answerable to the world. Just not to the future results of some scientific
experiment. That isn't how they're used right now. We already know what the
criteria are for establishing Harry's thoughts about Whitehead. Those
criteria aren't hidden from, or currently inaccessible to, us.

--snip--

>>
>> I begin to see how differently you see things here. But I see much
>> more
>> hanging on the possible future abandonment of 'intention'. I don't
>> deny that
>> we could invent new concepts that give us different ways to explain
>> human
>> action. But a whole network of concepts we currently have would
>> unravel at
>> this point.
>
> actually many of them are unraveling, then people reconstruct them if
> they so desire, we go through this quite often actually.  Call it
> conceptual analysis or theorizing, but this is not an uncommon
> situation to have in academia where we are at once trying to describe
> a very complicated chain of relations on the one hand, and trying to
> make it interpretable by others on the other hand.  Those two values
> the explaining/describing of empirical data and the construction of
> ways to understand that data are frequently at odds.
>
>> Our concept of what it is to be a person is bound up with other
>> concepts: accountability, action, moral responsibility, individual
>> choice,
>> constraint, compulsion, justification...
>
> Mine isn't so much most of those, i tend to strip the person pretty
> bare.  I assume they have a mind and that has certain implications but
> not all of the ones above, and that they can act in the world.
>

You speak as if we just pick concepts of persons off a shelf, inspect them,
dust them off, take them up if they suit us for the moment, discard them at
will, etc. Sure, we can each say whatever we like about human beings, about
what human beings 'are'. And we can debate 'views' endlessly and idly, as
you and I are doing now. We can paint whatever picture strikes us. But if we
honestly try to treat another human being as if they are not accountable for
their actions, as if their actions require no justification, as if they act
without agenda, purpose or intention, we might see just how much of our
socially organised lives are intertwined with a notion like 'intention'.
Changing conceptions of personhood isn't like rearranging deck chairs, in
spite of the fact there are so many flavours on the bookshelf to choose
from. In practice, there are many fundamental agreements. We don't treat the
impact of a fist with our head the way we treat that of an acorn from a
tree.

--snip--

>> The idea that it will 'take years to break that tradition' is hardly
>> what is at stake. We're talking about a reinvention of human life, of
>> society. If we encountered a humanoid colony who operated a society
>> without
>> personal accountability or anything like it, we would not consider
>> them
>> human, and could not recognise ourselves in what passed for their
>> 'society'.
>
> not really, we are just talking about describing the world and human
> society as it seems to exist within one model, if that model proves
> successful, grand,  it seems to be doing ok in some accounts.  I don't
> see it as a threat to anything like the 'way of life'.  I'd hope
> perhaps better decisions can be made when there are more models
> available to consider.
>
> Umm, there are people in this world that have no sense of the personal
> in regards to accountability.  Seems like every year someone else says
> this same thing... that we are a global individualistic
> monoculture....  and i have to say that no, people elsewhere do
> sometimes think differently about this system of relations.  They are
> increasingly rare, but individualism and personal accountability
> aren't 'human nature'  they are one culture.   There are plenty of
> other possible ways of being without needing to demand the absolute
> reality of one.    That said, the current western discourse and
> culture seems to be either gaining in some respects or losing in some
> respects its hegemony, there is much debate about this in the class of
> cultures literature, fascinating stuff.
>
>
Now I'm a mono-cultural globalisation-touting Western hegemonist. Oh well.
:-) The point is not that there are no cultural differences (who would
entertain that claim?) The point is that we have not discovered a human
culture that does not e.g. raise children to be responsible for their
actions. The relevant differences in culture here relate to what kinds of
things can be invoked to excuse behaviour, what kinds of reasons are
culturally acceptable and in what circumstances, what kinds of behaviour is
sanctionable and by reference to what. The intelligibility of human action,
the possibility of understanding other cultures and practices, is contingent
on some fundamental human agreements. Otherwise translation, communication
etc. would not be possible. It is difficult, there are problems for sure,
but it is doubtlessly possible. There certainly are very different ways of
organising life, and some of those differences are cultural. They carry
concepts different from our own. But the very fact of their intelligibility
shows us how much we have in common.

This has been a stimulating discussion. Thanks for your time.

Ben

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 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
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 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
August 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
January 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
June 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
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
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

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