Quotes

"Dialogue is mutual search for a new reality, not debate to win with stronger arguments. In a dialogue propositions are pointers toward a common new reality; not against each other to win a verbal battle, but complementing each other in an effort to accommodate legitimate goals of all parties, inspired by theories and values, and constructive-creative-concrete enough to become a causa finalis". Galtuung


"I use the concept of affect as away of talking about a margin of manouverability, the 'where we might be able to go' and 'what we might be able to do' in every present situation. I guess 'affect' is a word I use for 'hope': Massumi


"A discourse is a system of words, actions, rules, beliefs, and institutions that share common values. Particular discourses sustain particular worldviews. We might even think of a discourse as a worldview in action. Discourses tend to be invisible--taken for granted as part of the fabric of reality."Fairclough


Emergence is “the principle that entities exhibit properties which are meaningful only when attributed to the whole, not to its parts.” Checkland


"What the designer cares about is whether the user perceives that some action is possible (or in the case of perceived non-affordances, not possible)." Norman




Friday, 29 October 2010

Discursive Expertise

Expertise  - the discursive idea that there are no commonalities of meaning neatly fits with the natural academic desire for an endless set of research opportunities, and language games with their resident expert

It demote the possibility and use of  inter subject -wisdom and furthers the gap of understanding hence it can fall into the a situation of divide and rule competition in the service of capital...

Habermas makes a claim for an intersubjective meta discourse?

Discourse ethics is a normative ethics for pluralistic societies which no longer have a single, overarching moral authority.


 Habermas points out quite rightly that the fact that in disputing the validity claims of truth, normative rightness and authenticity [Wahrhaftigkeit], we must nonetheless apply precisely these norms to our dispute - this does not entail any foundation, much less a final foundation for these validity claims. This could be interpreted as a transcendental-logical mistake by K.-O. Apel. For Habermas, however, this shows only that we actually have no alternatives in argument. The validity claims are 'pragmatic universals'. His critique of Apel does not imply that the validity claims are not valid.

http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/cavalier/Forum/meta/background/agimmler.html
Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)