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

[mike cole]

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> 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/
> 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:
>> xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy
>> Blunden
>> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:31 AM
>> To: 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/
>> 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:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=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*