Edgar Morin analyzes the global company in 2012 in Rennes

[Obamot]

Knowing them a little, their idea is based on benevolent decisions supposed to go beyond the cleavages and appealing to "reason" ... Only here, that plays the game of finance opportunists (the reason of the strongest ... ) who say to themselves: "keep talking"And meanwhile ignore ...

[Christophe]

Rolalala but what a pessimism !!

They do not denounce that finance ... and as a good environmental activist, did you not take their advice?

a) the path is made by walking! (Morin)
b) hope allows us to realize our wishes provided we want it strong enough (Hessel)

I agree more with a) than b) ...

[Obamot]

Yes i also agree with the "AT" (even if very minimalist ...)

Except that tells him that "all perception would have a quasi-hallucinatory component ”.... [SIC] So the "way" may not even exist ... (besides it is not from him but from Lao Tzu, if I am not mistaken, get bored)

As I have skimmed over the question a bit, I will expand!

And I agree with Ahmed (I even think that his theory is a pretext for advancing a humanist cause, so I think in principle of the good of his action) ...

Yet Edgar Morin's theory of "The representation"", has little to do with analysis ...

It is based on a simplistic premise, saying that "We are not objective" and tries to demonstrate it ...

Only, there are many examples that do not fit into his theory:
- if I see someone who is dead. It is because he is dead. It is not a partial knowledge of reality (alas in this case), nor does it make any use of my memory since it happens "in the present";
- unless you are color blind, if I see a bright red wall, it will not be yellow, blue or green. It is not a partial or fantasy representation of reality. The wall is red, it's an observation, period. Even if no one has ever seen a red color before, the wall will always be red for a thermocolorimeter and for our eyes that work the same (in principle and for the majority of humans). In short, the wall is red;
- and another indication that goes the same: there is a wall! Again, if we discover it for the first time, it does not appeal to our memory and it is not a "fantasy";
- indeed, if the vehicle in which I am, is embedded in this red wall. It is indeed rugged ... The representation is clear ... No fantasy, no memory, same if I have to go to the hospital because of possible injuries. Etc.
- a child is born, or it is still in its mother's womb ...
- we are on time for an appointment, or we are not!
etc.

I would say that Morin's concept is at least partial, at least as often as what he offers us is not precisely measurable. For everything else, sorry ... The Golf of Mexico is still still polluted by oil and Fukushima still as disgusting ... The facts are stubborn. There is a little memory ... But not when it happened!

And in itself, if we apply this theory to itself, this demonstration is no more objective than the rest. In short, a sort of snake that would bite its tail.

Consider rather: it schematically reduces it to two co-factors:



Memory patterns and fantasies! And it brings attention, emotion and motivation into ... fantasies! Just that! You still have to remember the definition of fantasies:

Definition of fantasy: illusory vision or imaginary situation.

It's really very simplistic. There are many other cases where the situation is neither imaginary nor illusory, like those cited as an example above! But on the other hand, it is good to ask the question on this question. This is the only Cartesian merit that can be applied to it by making a ... generality!

If it is not wrong to reflect on questions of objectivity, we cannot with a single stroke of the pen, with one, turn the page and erase everything that has existed in terms of psychology, motivation and emotion by reducing them to so little - it is much more complex, for example - by ignoring Constructivist Epistemology (by Jean Piaget, etc.), techniques of creativity which call upon many other things than fantasies (like the "carbon copy") and which seek above all to include rationality in our "representation" of things. Which even if it de facto calls on our memory, also titillates several of our other faculties, such as:

- Instinct, innate and other predispositions;

- Among which the space and the spatial representation (observation of the state of a given place in 3D => you are in a wall or you are not, we remain "objectives");

- Vision and visual representation (colors are what they are, whether you see them, represent them or not ... they are there. Where they are ... It is objective ...) ;

- Sound and sound representation (in Hertz, with all due respect to Dedeleco, who will never stop stopping the sound with a light material => law of mass, it is objective and observed ...);

- And so on for all our cognitive faculties ... until the vehicle accident that needs to be repaired, and we at the hospital treat ...

- We can also include the “temporal” data which plays its role (the here and now which we find moreover in psychology to make nothing of his theory of sociologist, if we want to make it even more complex in the "objective" representation, we just have to give ourselves the means amha => there it's simple takes a clock => before the hour it's not the hour ... after the hour it's no longer the hour ...);

- for creativity, it's already more tangible but it's possible to “objectify” it! It is the process of conceptualization according to needs (when these do not always call on memory but on needs imperative, necessary and immediate, such as vital physiological needs, without which life is not possible => hence the fact that "representation" involves the setting of "priorities" and not "motivation", since certain actions are necessary to survive => but only this passage possibly calls on our memory => for example reflex memory for the action of breathing ...).

- which de facto conditions or not, the mechanism of "intentions". Of which he does not speak. An intention is not a fantasy, nor does it necessarily appeal to our memory ...

- and therefore necessarily, the affect which induces benevolence, good will (for example) and which influences the representation of the world. They are not fantasies, yet he classifies them as well because that suits his explanation. Still need to understand why?

Morin may be a humanist. But it is amha a "slack" which is in line with the current theoretical university model. And who would like us to conceptualize our representations by stripping them of everything that makes up the characteristics of human beings ... To do this, he chose to stick the fantasy label to our motivation supposedly dependent on our emotions.

By finally ensuring by this reasoning that we are "nothing", that we do not exist - except for the representation explained in the universe that it describes - to ultimately make rationality triumph through the fear of recalled death. on all floors. And we would like to put in “small boxes” tidy in their place, everything that is messy and everything that disturbs: our motivation ... by linking it to our emotions!

If we peel a little, Morin wants a representation (it is his) of human beings without motivation and without emotion. Because otherwise we would be creative beings therefore fantastic and therefore dangerous for society ... What a base! It makes me think that I have to prepare my tax return: and that is a clear representation, which does not appeal to fantasies (lol)

I would rather believe that there is "a time for everything", that each action can be described "in its space and in its time", and that this will not necessarily go through the simplified representation scheme as its drawing is supposed to demonstrate this. It is not fantastic but chronological, in this case!

For me it lacks what is described above, and at least: the instinct, the innate, the mechanism of "intention", and the creativity that I would separate from fantasies since it is it that allows us to get out of what he calls the "almost hallucinatory" which would direct our "dangerous brain" (according to the revealed eye of the sociologist ...) and which must also change from one individual to another. Already because it is not clearly established, from which understanding all this follows (Dede, I already told you that I did not take a position on this point, needless to insist ... ).

No, Mr. Morin: it is not only a “phantasmatic apprehension of this reality”, we cannot generalize, our representation of the universe varies, certainly, but not always: we are a whole and not elements dissociated, we also have a heart, therefore a body and a spirit outside of fantasies, and we are not intended to function as robots, to please industry, banks and psychiatrists ...!

It goes there, it was less pessimistic and clearer?

(... and the first one who tells me that I had to use my fantasies and my memory to write this, I would say no, that I made a copied paste like Dede, because it reassures me. ..)

[Christophe]

Obamot do you want to compete with Morin and Hessel together?

No frankly you have not shorter / synthetic as a counter argument? (ah I know it is to scratch dedicated? )

[Obamot]

Kektuconprenpa keu chtexplik

You take the first six paragraphs and it's good. All is said.

The rest is for the nerds ... not Dede ..

[Christophe]

No no especially not! Don't explain!

I'm fine, I understood everything

I thought it was to scratch dedicated !!

[Obamot]

Did you read "between the lines"then: exhausted, is that it?

... 'what a job ...! If there must be a contradiction between the lines: I pity the croco ...

[Ahmed]

Obamot, you write:

3) Morin's contradiction with himself by advocating "independence of thought" is inherent in any thinker who expresses himself publicly in this sense: to be silent? express themselves and therefore "be in the front"?

You are perfectly and completely right, however my remark does not lose relevance just because it does not address only to Morin but it is of a general nature: it results from the division of labor which reserves the faculty of thinking of a few, and it is up to them to spread the good word ... except that it biases everything.

@ Christophe: you are (partly) right about Desertec, but this is a personal allergy! I took the precaution of forwarding this statement with a smiley!

[Christophe]

@ Christophe: you are (partly) right about Desertec, but this is a personal allergy! I took the precaution of forwarding this statement with a smiley!

I had to miss an episode

[Ahmed]

The episode is on page 1 ...