Thursday 1 July 2010

network ethics

“its impossible to justify epistemological or ontological claims without invoking value statements, and hence, ethical and political concerns. Philosophy today that doesn’t talk about oppressions like racism and global capital is radically incomplete, and even if its implied ethics is anti-oppressive.”

in another point he adds
" I think that the only reason for having a flat ontology over any other is ethical. And I don’t think you can separate ontology, epistemology, aesthetics, and ethics – yes, for practical purposes they may be distinct, but each implies the other when it comes down to it."

I think this is something that I have tried to argue for so long. If we as architects are about to be engaged in a deep and profound way with the machine (computer) and to ride the wave of emergence that would mean a new ontological and epistemological framework through which we express and practice architectural design. if this is the case then nothing remains intact in terms of ethics and aesthetics. if ontology and epistemology change then we need to reinterpret and think afresh both ethics and aesthetics. It seems appropriate to think in terms of ethics of immanence and aesthetics of pragmatics.

No comments:

Blog Widget by LinkWithin