"What kind of an act is 'doing Theory'?" . . . Is it practical? For pleasure? Is it an artistic practice? Surely, it could be a mixture of things. Theory's basic phenomenon is thinking per se. So, it is an act of thinking - this much you have gathered, I'm sure. :) But then, thinking itself can be many different kinds of acts, and often leads to many patterns of behaviors.
Of course, there is no one, monolithic "THEORY" we're approaching here, tentatively. We're in part thinking about Theory as a constellation of theories about so-called Digital Media, yes, and in so doing we are referring to specific things with a factical status as things, with histories, associated "authors," and so on. But we're also thinking-through Theory as the second type of phenomenon I mentioned in class: as a process of thinking, as distinguished from Theory as a form of knowledge (a knowledge-thing, a knowledgeable person and discourse from that voice, et cetera).
So then, starting with first things first, as an act of thinking, what can we say about Theory? This thinking is certainly intentional (as opposed to unintentional, as in oblivious, automatic, random-accidental, or habitual thinking). I wonder, if there is intent present in this thinking we are beginning to learn to do ourselves, then What do we intend? may be the first response, as a questioning-back, a response to our question.
However, let's think deeply about the very phenomenon of intention first, so we do not become distracted by specific (factical) intentions (including our own). . . . This "intentional" - is it intuition? is it interest? Heidegger lays out intentional thinking as a response to the call of "what is thought-provoking," which seems to come from a not-necessarily-personal / not-necessarily-individual sort of nexus. That should get you going . . .
3 comments:
After having class today, I feel like I have a better idea of what a theory could be. Initially I felt a bit lost but after the class discussion I think a theory is a generally accepted conception or idea about something that many people approve of. It could also be a personal theory that only you believe in but it isn't something you can prove or not prove. It can only be debated. Theories seem to be educated ideas but aren't like laws which are not debated over like theories.
An example of a theory versus a law is with the the theory of Evolution over Newton's Laws like gravity. Gravity is one of the laws of physics that applies to nature. The Earth spins on an axis and creates a force that pulls objects towards its center. Evolution is a theory because you can't really measure or say that species of organisms evolve from a common ancestor. There is too much time in between for scientists to be actually sure of it.
My view of theory has changed largely after our readings and discussions. At first, I had the narrow minded view of what theory was, which included stuck-up philosophers sitting at desks for hours trying to reach a point.
But now I can see theory as something that has a much broader definition-and I see the steps to arriving at a theory differently as well. As we proved in class after we created a mental map, another way to reach a theory is to go from point to point, without a specific end in mind: in fact, I found this much easier to do. And though I didn't have a definitive end in mind when I started, I think I reached a reasonable point by the time I was done 'mapping'.
And on a final note, I think 'digital' media can offer us lots of new ways to reach 'theories' through expanded resources, especially with the internet and all of it's resources.
09/13/2007
Heidegger discusses the meanings of both interest and interesting and the differences between the two words and their meanings. He writes, "interest, interesse, means to be at the center of a thing and to stay with it" (Heidegger, 3). This is, he goes on to explain, very different from interesting. Anything can be interesting and moreover it is fleeting. Fleeting in the sense that just as you deem a thing interesting, it becomes ordinary, because there are endless interesting things but not necessarily endless things in which you take interest. What was once interesting can be so quickly replaced by another interesting thing that your recollection of all interesting things is most likely impossible. Interest requires more than a whimsical opinion, it requires time, dedication, and continuous growth.How is interest related to intent? I think, in our case, intention must reflect interest and not necessarily intuition. As we've said, theory is a thought process, not a knowledge we already possess. It would seem then, that theoretical thought processing must abstain from intuition and try to avoid it. Theoretical thought is a new method of thinking which may be very unnatural for us, so following our intuition may not lead down the path of theoretical thinking.
I think a major challenge for me will be avoiding my natural intuition and instead focus my interest on the goal at hand which is theoretical thinking. I learned a great deal from the article entitled Metaphors We Live By and how warped our minds are. The way in which we communicate and conceptualize is so culturally loaded that it truly is difficult to understand the real meanings of our words and concepts. It would be interesting to see what would happen if our concepts, language, and overall communication were broken down to be less metaphorically inclined and more straight forward so that we may look at an issue and approach it without so many assumptions. I understand that metaphor is embedded in human communication, but there are some metaphorically concepts which could be altered in such a way to benefit society. For example, thinking of argument more metaphorically toward negotiation versus war may guide society down a very different path. These assumptions and concepts can block out core importance of the issue at hand. Other aspects can take priority without us even realizing it. It is a new level of analytical thinking the would be very helpful when examining various forms of media. You can look at what is being said and occurring as you know it to be systematically, but a true skill is to be able to understand what really is being said minus the implications of language and culture.
Post a Comment