On 02/10/2014, at 17:32, Terence Love wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
>
> Thanks for your message.
>
> You wrote,
> 'if you throw a rock at a window and the glass breaks, it breaks regardless
> of how you spell it. You can say something like "rock window" or "rock
> breaks window" or "I broke the window because I threw a rock aimed straight
> at it."
> The latter just conveys more information about the phenomenon. It doesn't
> make it happen. '
>
> Good so far, and then you wrote,
>
> 'Actors, agents, actants... the traits are there before you put names on
> them.'
>
> ???
>
> Hmm? Is that what you really meant to say?
Hi Terry,
Yes.
I will try to make myself more clear:
What I mean is that the causality, the relations and the linearity of action is already there, in reality, before you come up with the concepts of "action", "actor", "subject", "object", "verb", "noun", "adjective", whatever.
You throw the rock. The window gets broken. The window is breakable. You did it. You have the volution to do it. Etc.
I can come up and say "You broke the window on purpose because you threw a rock at it."
A Riau native speaker can come up and say "You rock window."
You choose which is epistemological healthier.
Best regards,
==================================
Carlos Pires
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
-------------------------------------------------------------
Design & New Media MFA // Communication Design PhD Student @ FBA-UL
Check the project blog:
http://thegolemproject.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|