Ethics, 2009. Freedom of Speech.

Yesterday, at a Design Anthropology lecture, I asked the lecturer this question:

"Do you think that designing products to meet the needs of a consumer causes consumers to rely on comforts and only want these comforts, or better designs, because the products can be redesigned? It seems as though, especially in first world countries, products create culture, rather than supplement culture."

She was deeply confused, could not answer, and another woman in the far back of the room had to automatically chime in to remind her that I had asked her a philosophical question regarding her belief system; to find out who she is.

It is extremely exciting to find out that the people with PhDs only get what they want because they are after the money involved, have no real opinions, and probably went into Anthropology having them. Where these viewpoints go is not for me to know. What I have realized is that if someone cannot tell you their whole-hearted, gut ethical feelings, they only worked hard enough to build clout with their peers. IE: letters of recommendation, public relations, and so on. I on the other hand, have a purpose, and have no need for alienation from myself; I don't EVER want to fit in just to "get ahead", I want to be so outcast that I create unknown worlds in which I am happy, in which no one can figure out why.

Alternatively, and therefore, the lesson I learned, is have hard-working ethics to a degree, but never, never obtain a PhD just to work for a company like Kinkos, Pepsi, or any cell phone company just to "make ends meet".

She said she was "into" health food.

'Design Features of Human Language' in Anthropology by Lavenda & Schultz

"The ability of language users to prevaricate–to make statements or ask questions that violate convention–is a major consequence of open symbolic systems."

An example from Chomsky: "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."

What are open symbolic systems? 

"Human language is creative... 

The ability to understand the same thing from different points of view.

In this view, no single perspective would necessarily emerge as more correct in every aspect that all others."

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

I find this most interesting in that the more we adapt words and phrases, the more "correct" versions of them we get, and therefore may one day lose all origin of all language. 

This is not necessarily a bad thing, because more versions of words and phrases possibly means more understanding. Creativity in language might lead to purposelessness of thought, or words and language becoming unnecessary forms of communication.

Word Math

Subsequent: |ˈsəbsəkwənt|[adjective] coming after something in time; following.

(plus)

Adjective: |ˈajiktiv|[noun] Grammara word or phrase naming an attribute, added to or grammatically related to a noun to modify or describe it.

(equals)

Coming after named attributes, describing a noun, in time.

That which comes, after an attribute is named, or a noun is described.

Adj: Subsequent Adjective...

Adjective Subsequence: |ˈajiktiv ˈsəbsəkwəns| [adjective noun] This is what happens after something is described.