There is this thought that frequently bothers me. If [REP], [MET] and [HUB] are beyond humans, how do we (humans) in the context of discussions and meetings (the AIME site is a good recording of all this activity, all the mundane part of the working of philosophy) relate to them?
If I perceive them as part of a system (even a system under construction) where we posit them for reasons of completeness, while suposedly they go way beyond us humans (something than normally would be dealt with by [REF]) then I do not see much difference from the "bad" bifurcatory approach. Indeed a metaphysics that would talk about the ontology of the world as if the philosopher (Latour or any other participant) stands in front of reality and creates a model of reality (using different "building blocks") feels bifurcatory.
I understand though that AIME-se is supposed to work "by the side". To accompany and facilitate life, not to take the juice out of it.
So this is how I, a person untrained in the philosophical traditions that nurture AIME, ended up thinking about the structure of the modes.
1. We always "find ourselves" in agent swarms, or assemblies in the process of dialogues.
2. One can speak about " engaging in [MET] with an eye on ( [REF], [TEC], [FIC] )". While being in an assembly, one (who is not a "modern subject" but still we are speaking about a dialogue "registered in human consciousness as well") may move [MET]amorposingly, but in the moderns this "leads to a specific fruit" through these three modes. I may be in a crisis but I end up writing poems or singing or devising cuning plots or rationalizing my condition
3. One can speak about " engaging in [REP] with an eye on ([POL], [LAW], [REL]) ".
4. In the moderns [REP] and [MET] are strongly differentiated. They are like quarks drawn apart in a proton (as if the triad of modes in each one drags it away from the other) but as they are drawn apart the dyad [NET] /[PRE] comes into being. They are born through this tension and they express the reflectivity of the moderns about the constituents of the world.
5. [ATT]. [ORG] and [MOR] is the specific form that take in the case of moderns "gifts of God" that take other forms in other traditions. (I have some reservations about [MOR] that I have expressed here http://vkollias.blogspot.gr/2016/09/is-mor-mode.html). They are the prerequisites of innertia,of the distribution of power, of motives (in the activity theory tradition) . Each may move in 4 ways: a) the FELICITY condition b) the [HUB] condition (in the sense of reflective exercise as in the studies of expertize development) c) the failure (return to zero-state) and d) the [DC] condition. They express the reflectivity of the moderns on the dialogic nature of the world.
If I perceive them as part of a system (even a system under construction) where we posit them for reasons of completeness, while suposedly they go way beyond us humans (something than normally would be dealt with by [REF]) then I do not see much difference from the "bad" bifurcatory approach. Indeed a metaphysics that would talk about the ontology of the world as if the philosopher (Latour or any other participant) stands in front of reality and creates a model of reality (using different "building blocks") feels bifurcatory.
I understand though that AIME-se is supposed to work "by the side". To accompany and facilitate life, not to take the juice out of it.
So this is how I, a person untrained in the philosophical traditions that nurture AIME, ended up thinking about the structure of the modes.
1. We always "find ourselves" in agent swarms, or assemblies in the process of dialogues.
2. One can speak about " engaging in [MET] with an eye on ( [REF], [TEC], [FIC] )". While being in an assembly, one (who is not a "modern subject" but still we are speaking about a dialogue "registered in human consciousness as well") may move [MET]amorposingly, but in the moderns this "leads to a specific fruit" through these three modes. I may be in a crisis but I end up writing poems or singing or devising cuning plots or rationalizing my condition
3. One can speak about " engaging in [REP] with an eye on ([POL], [LAW], [REL]) ".
4. In the moderns [REP] and [MET] are strongly differentiated. They are like quarks drawn apart in a proton (as if the triad of modes in each one drags it away from the other) but as they are drawn apart the dyad [NET] /[PRE] comes into being. They are born through this tension and they express the reflectivity of the moderns about the constituents of the world.
5. [ATT]. [ORG] and [MOR] is the specific form that take in the case of moderns "gifts of God" that take other forms in other traditions. (I have some reservations about [MOR] that I have expressed here http://vkollias.blogspot.gr/2016/09/is-mor-mode.html). They are the prerequisites of innertia,of the distribution of power, of motives (in the activity theory tradition) . Each may move in 4 ways: a) the FELICITY condition b) the [HUB] condition (in the sense of reflective exercise as in the studies of expertize development) c) the failure (return to zero-state) and d) the [DC] condition. They express the reflectivity of the moderns on the dialogic nature of the world.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου