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

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



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*