[Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts

Andy Blunden ablunden@mira.net
Fri Jun 5 08:05:50 PDT 2015


I think that's just a little too poetic for me, Mike.  I 
couldn't say.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
On 6/06/2015 1:02 AM, mike cole wrote:
> So in David's use of the term, Andy, the ideological 
> shadow of an artifact is the shadow of the system of ideas 
> that it casts/embodies/affords...??
>
> mike
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Andy Blunden 
> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
>     Well, this is the whole issue of the ambiguity in how
>     people use the word "ideology" isn't it, Lubmir?
>     You use "ideology" in the pejorative sense, therefore
>     good science cannot be ideological, only bad science.
>     Fair enough. But I would go part way to the way David
>     uses the word, ideology is a system of ideas, and
>     science most certainly is a system of ideas, and also
>     characteristic of a certain social strata or
>     institution, but not thereby self-serving, dangerous, etc.
>
>     :)
>     Andy
>     ------------------------------------------------------------
>     *Andy Blunden*
>     http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>     <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>     On 6/06/2015 12:43 AM, Lubomir Savov Popov wrote:
>
>         Hi Andy,
>
>         Ideologies might include laws of nature (including
>         the social nature of society) but this is not a
>         requirement. Ideologies are systems of principles
>         or ideas that justify political talk, action, and
>         behavior in order to defend or obtain a bigger
>         piece of the pie (put it simply).
>
>         In this case, the natural science law by itself is
>         not ideological. It becomes ideological when it is
>         included in the body of an ideology, when it is
>         appropriated by a group of people to serve their
>         objectives. But this doesn't make a natural law
>         ideological by itself. Now, you might say that the
>         discovery or formulation of a natural science law
>         might be influenced by political ideology. This is
>         a completely different talk. Bolshevik ideology
>         influenced the discovery of the principle of the
>         leading role of the proletariat. You can tell me
>         if this this is a real law in the social realm or
>         an ideological construct. Certain social
>         "discoveries" in totalitarian or authoritarian
>         countries claimed to be based on science and to be
>         scientific laws of nature, but in effect these
>         were ideological constructions in disguise.
>
>         There is a major difference between science and
>         ideology as social institutions. The goal of
>         science is to understand the world as it is (or
>         the closest approximation); the goal of ideology
>         is to defend our socioeconomic position at any
>         rate, no matter what. Ideology can use science or
>         might pretend to be using science, which is most
>         often the case. If we mix science and ideology, if
>         we idologize science, we make a dangerous mix that
>         can kill billions of people (so far only a few
>         hundred million in and around two world wars).
>
>         Best wishes,
>
>         Lubo
>
>         -----Original Message-----
>         From:
>         xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>         <mailto:bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>         [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+lspopov
>         <mailto:xmca-l-bounces%2Blspopov>=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>         <mailto:bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>] On Behalf Of
>         Andy Blunden
>         Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:31 AM
>         To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>         <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>         Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of
>         Artifacts
>
>         So for example, Lubomir, if a natural scientist
>         formulates a law of nature which stands up to the
>         test of time for over a century (e.g. Darwin), it
>         surely is ideological, but would you claim that it
>         reflects the interests of Charles Darwin (and
>         maybe other biologists) and does not have within
>         it a universal truth. (NB not = objective or
>         universal truth, but "has within it" or "has a
>         basis in universal experience,"
>         etc.) Is it really all relative??
>
>         Andy
>         ------------------------------------------------------------
>         *Andy Blunden*
>         http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>         <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>         On 6/06/2015 12:19 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote:
>
>             I don't know if this helps but in researching
>             this term a few years ago with a student we
>             found the term emerged right after the French
>             revolution. Instead of basing a social system
>             on the activities of the populace and building
>             up from these there was a movement to base the
>             political system on a set of ideals.  This was
>             disparaged I guess by a number of the more
>             intense revolutionaries and they began to call
>             this group of idealists ideologues - leading
>             to the idea of basing your vision of
>             government (or expanded to almost anything) in
>             a set of abstract ideals.  I believe it was
>             Marx who remarked that these French ideologues
>             were walking on their heads - the goal of
>             Marxists was to flip them back over so they
>             are walking on their feet again (I believe
>             this is what people often confuse as Marx
>             flipping Hegel on his head - I have never been
>             able to find a quote that backs that up.  If
>             anybody does know of it please let me know).
>
>             Interestingly side note is that Thomas
>             Jefferson was in France at the time and
>             brought back the idea of ideology to the
>             United States wanting to develop a system
>             based on ideology and not practice.  The
>             French eventually flipped over a few times,
>             but in the United States we have been mired in
>             ideology since Jefferson's return.
>
>             Michael
>
>             -----Original Message-----
>             From:
>             xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>             <mailto:ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>             [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman
>             <mailto:xmca-l-bounces%2Bmglassman>=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>             <mailto:ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>]
>             On Behalf Of Lubomir Savov Popov
>             Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:03 AM
>             To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>             Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological
>             Footprint of Artifacts
>
>             Hello everyone,
>
>             A core definition of ideology in the political
>             sense should highlight that it is a system for
>             defending the social position/status that
>             individuals and groups acquire in the economic
>             process. All the rest is derivative. In that
>             light, politics is also an instrument for
>             defending or obtaining a desired position in
>             the socio-economic process.
>
>             In the professions, the word/term ideology is
>             often used to denote a system of general
>             believes and principles that drive
>             professional decision making.
>
>             Political ideologies affect design decision
>             making and in that way affect the organization
>             of artifact functions and morphology. And of
>             course, professional ideologies drive this
>             process overtly.
>
>             Best wishes,
>
>             Lubomir
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> All there is to thinking is seeing something noticeable 
> which makes
> you see something you weren't noticing which makes you see 
> something
> that isn't even visible. N.McLean, *A River Runs Through it*
>
>
>



More information about the xmca-l mailing list