[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[xmca] Does Differentiating artifacts by levels include differentiating ethical stances?

Mike and Arthur

I went to Jan Derry's website where she has listed a number of her
publications.  Mike, I noticed she co-authored an article with you that was
published in an edited book by Robert Sternberg & D. Preiss. [see attached
if anyone is interested]

There is a section of the article, starting on page 5, exploring the
differentiating of artifacts into "primary", "secondary" and "tertiary"

As I read this section I was linking the ideas to Charles Taylor's
differentiating various "ethical orientations" embedded in social practices
as constituted within particular historical periods.  Taylor is exploring
the "ideality" aspect of  social practices but as Mike & Jan's article makes
clear "ideality" & "materiality" are SIMULTANEOUSLY forming. I read this
position as suggesting neither "ideality" or "materiality" is PRIMARY [and
therefore neither "ideality" or "materiality" is DERIVED from the other] If
my reading of the article suggests that "ideality" must be engaged as deeply
as "materiality" THEN Taylor's reflections on "ethical stances" has a place
in explorations of the "artifactually constituted" con-text.

Mike and Jan on page 5 quote D'Andrade to make this point about "secondary
artifacts" [social forms of organizing action which enable the preservation
and transmission of modes of action using primary artifacts]

"Typically such schemes [secondary artifacts] portray SIMPLIFIED worlds,
making the appropriateness of the terms that are BASED on them dependent on
the degree to which THESE schemes fit the actual worlds of the artifacts
being categorized. Such schemes portray NOT ONLY the world of physical
objects and events, BUT ALSO more abstract worlds of social interaction,
discourse, and even word meaning"[D'Andrade]

This secondary level therefore is a more INCLUSIVE con-text for using
primary artifacts.  Mike and Jan then suggest there is an even more
inclusive "tertiary" level of artifacts They quote Wartofsky to describe
these special KINDS of artifacts as ones in which
"the FORMS of representation themselves come to constitute A WORLD (or
'worlds') OF IMAGINATIVE PRAXIS" [Wartofsky, 1979] allowing an arena for the
playing out of broader intentions AND AFFECTIVE NEEDS.

How are these various levels of artifacts linked?  Mike and Jan suggest

"Although EACH KIND of artifact may be considered independently of others,
each, with its own mixtures of materiality and ideality arises from and ACTS
BACK ON the other.  It is in THIS way that human beings bootstrap the means
of their own cognition" (p. 6)

This section of the article, exploring secondary and tertiary artifacts, may
be the process that Taylor is exploring in his response to Brandom.  Taylor
is asking us to notice that tertiary artifacts always EXPRESS an ethical
stance towards the world and to situate the use of primary and secondary
artifacts within tertiary artifacts is to ORIENT to these KINDS of artifacts
within a particular ethical perspective OF the world.  From this vantage
point "the giving and asking for reasons" may be a particular TYPE of
language game played out within an IMAGINATIVE ethical orientation within
"tertiary" con-texts.


Attachment: SEPTEMBER 2 2011 COLE MICHAEL & DERRY JAN We Have Met Technology and it is Us.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

xmca mailing list