At the risk of sounding predictable, there is a lesson here from
Wittgenstein. If we can decide that one part of our study concerns the
ineffable, we can stop trying to say anything about it and get on with the
other parts. I think this would be a useful contribution and would actually
help to advance the debate in the direction Lubomir would like by freeing
up resources. On the other hand (as I suspect), there is an aspect of tacit
or embodied knowledge [thank you Klaus] that merely masquerades as
ineffable then some of us should spend sometime clarifying that aspect and
finding appropriate words for it.
Michael
At 11:35 06/11/2002 -0500, Lubomir S. Popov wrote:
>Hello everybody,
>
>It is getting very tricky. I don't know how to name it with other words.
>
>Why do we engage in this long thread on tacit knowledge when no body talks
>about the phenomenon of reflection and a host of concepts related to it?
>Instead of complaining that nobody wants to listen to the intuition of
>designers, design researches would better spend their time finding ways of
>explicating and proceduralizing these intuitions. Actually there was at
>least one post in this direction. Hope someone will agree.
>
>Regards,
>
>Lubomir
************************************************************
Dr Michael A R Biggs
Reader in Visual Communication
Faculty of Art and Design, University of Hertfordshire
College Lane, Hatfield, Herts. AL10 9AB
United Kingdom
Telephone +44 (0)1707 285341
Fax +44 (0)1707 285350
E-mail [log in to unmask]
Internet http://www.michaelbiggs.org.uk/pub/
************************************************************
|