On 03/10/2014, at 23:49, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
> to perturb the certainty with which carlos rephrases terry's equally certain articulations in the english language that
>
> "You throw the rock. The window gets broken. The window is breakable. You did it. You have the volution to do it. Etc."
>
> you could also say that the window glass was destined to be broken and the rock fulfilled its destiny
> you could also say the window afforded being broken and invited someone to throw the rock
> you could also say that the one who tossed the rock had no intention to destroy the window, it was an accident
> you could also say that the thrower's anger against the window made him throw the rock
> you could also say that someone told him to throw the rock into the window
> you could also say that the one who threw the rock didn't see the glass in the window opening,
> you could also say that the window broke in anticipation of the rock coming
> etc.
Dear Klaus,
What I was trying to say was:
1-Something which we call "reality" exists, regardless of the way you model it.
2-There are different ways to model reality, but some convey more information than others.
3-Some models are more accurate than others.
...and implicitly:
4-You can't travel back in time
By "volition" I meant that throwing something involves voluntary movement.
Of course, I understand even that can be contested.
But you are expanding ad infinitum the possibilities of the rock/window example.
You can even say the Phoenicians are the cause, because they invented glass in the first place.
If you go down that path, you will end in the Big Bang.
That's a nice way to end any and all conversations, but I don't see how that can be useful.
(actually, it can be useful for generating new ideas, but that's not the point)
I should add that I agree completely with:
> we shouldn't confuse facts with customary ways of explaining why something happens.
And partially with:
> i prefer to distinguish attributing agency to humans or processes where decisions are involved and leave causality to where it is not. i prefer to hold people accountable for what they do, not the rocks they set in motion.
> these are not facts but preferences
...because preferences might be more on the accurate side, or on the widely innacurate side.
Anyway, I'm sorry for getting into this Byzantine argument and for contributing to the pollution it generated in here.
Or did I ?...
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|