Dear All,
"Verum et Factum Covertuntur" Giambattista Vico. But this doesn't mean that we should confuse the two.
Representation has a different role with either verifiable truth (verum) or with what is made (factum)
Language must act as representation when applied to verum. It must be reduced to the thinnest possible, non-metaphorical image of reality, as in scientific use of abstract symbols. There is no room in language, when it is used to represent verum, for a leak between such things as political and electrical versions of "resistance." "R" is "R" and can only relate to other forces through an equation: R=V/I.
Language used to represent factum must consider its terms as metaphors. A made reality is always in terms of other realities, so such things as resistance cab reveal new facts when the connection between politics and electricity become important. the recent energy blockade of the Gaza strip provides scenario where this might occur. New ays of grasping resistance might be found by merging the significance of electricity, resistance and politics.
Of course all language is a third space in which both these uses of language, and others, move and shake our reality. Can any of us ever say conclusively that we know the truth? and yet there are ways in which we operate that assume absolute knowledge (such as resistance).
Perhaps we might think more closely not about the question of fiction, but about the motives for claiming that certain forms of language are capable of creating truth.
Dr T
PS, I hope I have sent this in correctly. If I haven't, apologies to Ken.
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design on behalf of PHD-DESIGN automatic digest system
Sent: Thu 1/24/2008 11:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: PHD-DESIGN Digest - 22 Jan 2008 to 23 Jan 2008 (#2008-18)
There are 33 messages totalling 2236 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Is all writing fiction? (22)
2. Faction and fiction some references
3. doctoral research schools (2)
4. Is all writing friction?
5. Is all writing fiction? Fictive interaction References. (2)
6. Doing and representing science
7. positive design conference in April, Mexico
8. Fwd: US Debate on practice PhDs
9. Cheers -- [was Is all writing fiction?]
10. radicals and roots
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:21:36 -0500
From: Klaus Krippendorff <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
If fiction is what is created by an act of invention -- as my dictionary
suggest, i'd argue more generally
THE WORLD WE KNOW IS FICTION
not just the world that appears in writing. think about the history of the
known world. how often have we reconceptualized it, revised it, transformed
it -- by using language in novel ways, by design, by imagining how to use
it.
klaus
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:33:17 +1100
From: David Sless <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
On 23/01/2008, at 2:21 PM, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
> If fiction is what is created by an act of invention -- as my
> dictionary
> suggest, i'd argue more generally
>
> THE WORLD WE KNOW IS FICTION
A simple question. If the above statement is true, what is non-fiction?
David
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:42:48 +1100
From: teena clerke <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
And are not dictionaries themselves inventions in writing? And do
they not chronicle, in a particular narrative genre, 'the world we
know'? And do they not select, use bias, omit and order 'knowledge'
in a particular way that privileges as it excludes?
I thought I was arguing more generally!
Language may be used in novel ways in relation to what precedes, ie.
existing genres of writing. Language is instrumental in writing.
Imagination is bounded by language. Even if visual, meaning-making is
learned within discourse communities, and central to discourse is
language, ie. thoughts experienced as words... or not? What do you
think?
Is it possible to open up through designing what is bounded by
language? If the concept of design is limited to model making, then
this precludes other possibilities. Is it possible to open up
language through designing?
And if you construct the binary truth/falsehood when making meaning
of any written statement, then there are no other possibilities
beyond 'fiction/non-fiction'. And the line is drawn. Simple answer.
cheers, teena
If fiction is what is created by an act of invention -- as my dictionary
suggest, i'd argue more generally
THE WORLD WE KNOW IS FICTION
not just the world that appears in writing. think about the history of the
known world. how often have we reconceptualized it, revised it, transformed
it -- by using language in novel ways, by design, by imagining how to use
it.
klaus
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:51:49 -0500
From: Klaus Krippendorff <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
non-fiction is the illusion that the world is unalterably given and shared
by all
_____
From: David Sless [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:33 PM
To: Klaus Krippendorff; phd-design phd-design
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
On 23/01/2008, at 2:21 PM, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
If fiction is what is created by an act of invention -- as my dictionary
suggest, i'd argue more generally
THE WORLD WE KNOW IS FICTION
A simple question. If the above statement is true, what is non-fiction?
David
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:05:46 +1100
From: David Sless <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
On 23/01/2008, at 2:51 PM, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
> non-fiction is the illusion that the world is unalterably given and
> shared
> by all
So non-fiction is a form of fiction! What then can it mean to call
something fiction?
David
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 05:15:03 +0100
From: Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
Dear Klaus,
While all fiction is invented, not all inventions are fiction.
Epistemological claims of this sort trouble me. They lead to the
problem of infinite regress. They also raise a problem. If everything
is fiction or everything is invented solely by language, it is
difficult -- perhaps impossible -- to make statements in the "is"
form or to argue for any view as against any other. If the world we
know is fiction, how can any position be better, more reasonable or
responsible than any other?
Perhaps I'm mistaken on this -- that is, wrong or incorrect or
inadequate, not simply adopting a different view -- but I'd argue
that there is a world, that some things in the world are indeed
taking place, and that these events and activities influence the
lives of human beings. We invent our lives and create the positions
and actions we take, but this does not make our positions, lives, or
actions fictional in their consequences.
Yours,
Ken
--
Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
If fiction is what is created by an act of invention -- as my
dictionary suggest, i'd argue more generally
THE WORLD WE KNOW IS FICTION
--
Merriam-Webster's defines "fiction" as:
"1 a : something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically
: an invented story b : fictitious literature (as novels or short
stories) c : a work of fiction; especially : NOVEL; 2 a : an
assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of
its truth <a legal fiction> b : a useful illusion or pretense; 3 :
the action of feigning or of creating with the imagination."
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:22:06 -0500
From: Klaus Krippendorff <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
yes,
david,
this illusion is a fiction - but one that is not recognized as such.
beware of people who think they can talk of a world that exists outside
language
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David
Sless
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
On 23/01/2008, at 2:51 PM, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
> non-fiction is the illusion that the world is unalterably given and
> shared by all
So non-fiction is a form of fiction! What then can it mean to call something
fiction?
David
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:32:41 +1100
From: David Sless <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
But Klause, if I cannot talk of a world that exists outside language,
how can I talk about language?
David
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:42:29 -0500
From: Klaus Krippendorff <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
dear ken,
your statement "(if) everyTHING is fiction ..." is not the same as "every
known thing is fiction." if you confuse the two you get into epistemological
troubles.
how could you assume that the acknowledgement that the known world is
fiction prevents you from deciding which one is better, more reasonable, or
responsible? sure, some fictions are better than others. the point is that
you can't talk about a world without talking about it. you don't have
access to a reality outside of your nervous system that creates it.
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken
Friedman
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
Dear Klaus,
While all fiction is invented, not all inventions are fiction.
Epistemological claims of this sort trouble me. They lead to the problem of
infinite regress. They also raise a problem. If everything is fiction or
everything is invented solely by language, it is difficult -- perhaps
impossible -- to make statements in the "is"
form or to argue for any view as against any other. If the world we know is
fiction, how can any position be better, more reasonable or responsible than
any other?
Perhaps I'm mistaken on this -- that is, wrong or incorrect or inadequate,
not simply adopting a different view -- but I'd argue that there is a world,
that some things in the world are indeed taking place, and that these events
and activities influence the lives of human beings. We invent our lives and
create the positions and actions we take, but this does not make our
positions, lives, or actions fictional in their consequences.
Yours,
Ken
--
Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
If fiction is what is created by an act of invention -- as my dictionary
suggest, i'd argue more generally
THE WORLD WE KNOW IS FICTION
--
Merriam-Webster's defines "fiction" as:
"1 a : something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically
: an invented story b : fictitious literature (as novels or short
stories) c : a work of fiction; especially : NOVEL; 2 a : an assumption of a
possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth <a legal
fiction> b : a useful illusion or pretense; 3 :
the action of feigning or of creating with the imagination."
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:42:29 -0500
From: Klaus Krippendorff <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
by using language, of course!
are you buying into russell's theory of logical types, david? then you have
settled on a theory of language as representation.
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David
Sless
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
But Klause, if I cannot talk of a world that exists outside language, how
can I talk about language?
David
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:40:25 +1100
From: David Sless <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
On 23/01/2008, at 3:42 PM, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
> are you buying into russell's theory of logical types, david?
Not at all, just trying to make sense of what you are saying, but
without much success.
If, as you say, all non-fiction is fiction, then I don't think you
have said anything useful.
I have a fairly good idea in ordinary usage of when to describe
something as fiction and something else as non-fiction. When I go to
my local library or book shop and see signs that point me to fiction
and non-fiction, I know which section to go to for books on gardening
and where I will find books by Agatha Christie. It is of no value to
me to be told in that context that all non-fiction is fiction. If I
follow your advice I will look in the wrong place for gardening books.
If the fiction/non-fiction distinction works usefully why would I
abandon it? I can accept that gardening books are 'socially
constructed', and that there are some works that sit uneasily at the
boundary of fiction and non-fiction, like Moby Dick, but I still find
the distinction useful.
When you say: THE WORLD WE KNOW IS FICTION, I don't know what you are
saying that would fit into any of the normal contexts in which I would
use the terms fiction and non-fiction.
David
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:23:39 -0500
From: Klaus Krippendorff <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
david,
i would not say and never said that "all non-fiction is fiction." indeed,
this would not say much -- but this is your exception.
i tried to answer your question: if (as i said) THE WORLD WE KNOW IS
FICTION, what is non-fiction? and in my answer i granted you to make the
distinction between non-fiction and fiction as you wish, but this does not
give you access to anything outside your own nervous system within which you
construct the world you know. epistemologically, the world you know does
not represent the world to which you have no direct access. if non-fiction
means describing the world as is -- unframed by the language used to
describe it and without acknowledging its conceptualization by your nervous
system, then i call this claim illusionary, indeed.
klaus
pleas don't gloss over the fine points i made
k
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David
Sless
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:40 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
On 23/01/2008, at 3:42 PM, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
> are you buying into russell's theory of logical types, david?
Not at all, just trying to make sense of what you are saying, but without
much success.
If, as you say, all non-fiction is fiction, then I don't think you have said
anything useful.
I have a fairly good idea in ordinary usage of when to describe something as
fiction and something else as non-fiction. When I go to my local library or
book shop and see signs that point me to fiction and non-fiction, I know
which section to go to for books on gardening and where I will find books by
Agatha Christie. It is of no value to me to be told in that context that all
non-fiction is fiction. If I follow your advice I will look in the wrong
place for gardening books.
If the fiction/non-fiction distinction works usefully why would I abandon
it? I can accept that gardening books are 'socially constructed', and that
there are some works that sit uneasily at the boundary of fiction and
non-fiction, like Moby Dick, but I still find the distinction useful.
When you say: THE WORLD WE KNOW IS FICTION, I don't know what you are saying
that would fit into any of the normal contexts in which I would use the
terms fiction and non-fiction.
David
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 07:04:21 +0000
From: Ranulph Glanville <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
This quote from Heinz von Foerster seems relevant:
=93Objectivity is the delusion that observations could be made without =20=
an observer=94
Ranulph
On 23 Jan 2008, at 06:23, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
> david,
>
> i would not say and never said that "all non-fiction is fiction." =20
> indeed,
> this would not say much -- but this is your exception.
>
> i tried to answer your question: if (as i said) THE WORLD WE KNOW IS
> FICTION, what is non-fiction? and in my answer i granted you to =20
> make the
> distinction between non-fiction and fiction as you wish, but this =20
> does not
> give you access to anything outside your own nervous system within =20
> which you
> construct the world you know. epistemologically, the world you =20
> know does
> not represent the world to which you have no direct access. if non-=20=
> fiction
> means describing the world as is -- unframed by the language used to
> describe it and without acknowledging its conceptualization by your =20=
> nervous
> system, then i call this claim illusionary, indeed.
>
> klaus
>
> pleas don't gloss over the fine points i made
> k
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and =20
> related
> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of =20
> David
> Sless
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:40 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
>
> On 23/01/2008, at 3:42 PM, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
>> are you buying into russell's theory of logical types, david?
>
> Not at all, just trying to make sense of what you are saying, but =20
> without
> much success.
>
> If, as you say, all non-fiction is fiction, then I don't think you =20
> have said
> anything useful.
>
> I have a fairly good idea in ordinary usage of when to describe =20
> something as
> fiction and something else as non-fiction. When I go to my local =20
> library or
> book shop and see signs that point me to fiction and non-fiction, I =20=
> know
> which section to go to for books on gardening and where I will find =20=
> books by
> Agatha Christie. It is of no value to me to be told in that context =20=
> that all
> non-fiction is fiction. If I follow your advice I will look in the =20
> wrong
> place for gardening books.
>
> If the fiction/non-fiction distinction works usefully why would I =20
> abandon
> it? I can accept that gardening books are 'socially constructed', =20
> and that
> there are some works that sit uneasily at the boundary of fiction and
> non-fiction, like Moby Dick, but I still find the distinction useful.
>
> When you say: THE WORLD WE KNOW IS FICTION, I don't know what you =20
> are saying
> that would fit into any of the normal contexts in which I would use =20=
> the
> terms fiction and non-fiction.
>
> David
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:10:07 +1100
From: David Sless <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
I still don't know how to value what you say.
You say:
> if non-fiction means describing the world as is -- unframed by the =20=
> language used to
> describe it and without acknowledging its conceptualization by your =20=
> nervous
> system
But does non-fiction mean this in any context in which we normally use =20=
the term? Moreover how can I 'describe' an 'it' if there is no 'it' to =20=
which I have access, and which I can describe?
This seems to me like playing with language and abstractions, taking =20
the word 'non-fiction' out of its normal context and then doing things =20=
with it that make it seem something else. I think you are doing the =20
same with the words 'describe', 'it', and 'conceptualisation'. I'm =20
prepared to go so far as to say that my 'nervous system' does not =20
conceptualise anything. Only people and aliens can conceptualise. You =20=
are talking across quite different contexts of language use.
I go back to the library example. I can tell you without controversy =20
that, irrespective of whatever my nervous system might be doing, I =20
KNOW the library is in the world=97just round the corner in fact=97and =20=
that I know roughly what sort of books I will find in the fiction and =20=
non-fiction sections. This is the way we talk about these things IN =20
LANGUAGE, and get on with things in the world.
Perhaps it would be better to make the distinction you want to make in =20=
some other way. BTW, as you know, I too am a constructionist!
David
--=20=
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 02:14:11 -0500
From: Klaus Krippendorff <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
yes,
ranulph,
this is a special case of what i was presenting
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ranulph
Glanville
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:04 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
This quote from Heinz von Foerster seems relevant:
"Objectivity is the delusion that observations could be made without an
observer"
Ranulph
On 23 Jan 2008, at 06:23, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
> david,
>
> i would not say and never said that "all non-fiction is fiction."
> indeed,
> this would not say much -- but this is your exception.
>
> i tried to answer your question: if (as i said) THE WORLD WE KNOW IS
> FICTION, what is non-fiction? and in my answer i granted you to make
> the distinction between non-fiction and fiction as you wish, but this
> does not give you access to anything outside your own nervous system
> within which you construct the world you know. epistemologically, the
> world you know does not represent the world to which you have no
> direct access. if non- fiction means describing the world as is --
> unframed by the language used to describe it and without acknowledging
> its conceptualization by your nervous system, then i call this claim
> illusionary, indeed.
>
> klaus
>
> pleas don't gloss over the fine points i made k
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
> related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of David Sless
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:40 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
>
> On 23/01/2008, at 3:42 PM, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
>> are you buying into russell's theory of logical types, david?
>
> Not at all, just trying to make sense of what you are saying, but
> without much success.
>
> If, as you say, all non-fiction is fiction, then I don't think you
> have said anything useful.
>
> I have a fairly good idea in ordinary usage of when to describe
> something as fiction and something else as non-fiction. When I go to
> my local library or book shop and see signs that point me to fiction
> and non-fiction, I know which section to go to for books on gardening
> and where I will find books by Agatha Christie. It is of no value to
> me to be told in that context that all non-fiction is fiction. If I
> follow your advice I will look in the wrong place for gardening books.
>
> If the fiction/non-fiction distinction works usefully why would I
> abandon it? I can accept that gardening books are 'socially
> constructed', and that there are some works that sit uneasily at the
> boundary of fiction and non-fiction, like Moby Dick, but I still find
> the distinction useful.
>
> When you say: THE WORLD WE KNOW IS FICTION, I don't know what you are
> saying that would fit into any of the normal contexts in which I would
> use the terms fiction and non-fiction.
>
> David
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 02:34:15 -0500
From: Klaus Krippendorff <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
david,
if you ask your librarian what kind of books are found in the non-fiction
section, he or she might tell you that non-fiction books are about what
actually happened, what is true, histories, biographies, and factual
accounts, while the fiction section contains books that do not make such
claims, are about writers' imaginary world constructions.
all i did is chiming with teena saying (my paraphrase) that everything
written is written from a particular perspective, are colored by ideological
lenses and vested interest in the subject matter, relying on a vocabulary
and syntactical structures that cannot possibly accurately represent what
actually happened. although people might believe reading non-fiction gains
then access to what actually happened, this belief is illusionary.
i do not know what is so difficult to understand here -- except that the
librarian is probably not an epistemologist and might believe that reality
could be accessed that way.
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David
Sless
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:10 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
I still don't know how to value what you say.
You say:
> if non-fiction means describing the world as is -- unframed by the
> language used to describe it and without acknowledging its
> conceptualization by your nervous system
But does non-fiction mean this in any context in which we normally use the
term? Moreover how can I 'describe' an 'it' if there is no 'it' to which I
have access, and which I can describe?
This seems to me like playing with language and abstractions, taking the
word 'non-fiction' out of its normal context and then doing things with it
that make it seem something else. I think you are doing the same with the
words 'describe', 'it', and 'conceptualisation'. I'm prepared to go so far
as to say that my 'nervous system' does not conceptualise anything. Only
people and aliens can conceptualise. You are talking across quite different
contexts of language use.
I go back to the library example. I can tell you without controversy that,
irrespective of whatever my nervous system might be doing, I KNOW the
library is in the world-just round the corner in fact-and that I know
roughly what sort of books I will find in the fiction and non-fiction
sections. This is the way we talk about these things IN LANGUAGE, and get on
with things in the world.
Perhaps it would be better to make the distinction you want to make in some
other way. BTW, as you know, I too am a constructionist!
David
--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:57:57 +1100
From: Gavin Melles <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Faction and fiction some references
Norman Denzin tried to address some of this in relation to research and
the power of ethnographic work (Street Corner Society), which played a
big part in questioning the fact/fiction boundary again in terms of
ultimate research purposes (pragmatism again)
Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 2, No. 2, 230-241 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/107780049600200207
=C2=A9 1996 SAGE Publications
The Facts and Fictions of Qualitative Inquiry
Norman K. Denzin
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
William Foote Whyte's defense of the methodology used in Street Corner
Society is used as an occasion to examine the work of the New
Journalists who struggled to redefine the fact-fiction distinction in
ethnographic and journalistic discourse. The relevance of this discourse
for contemporary qualitative inquiry is discussed.
Also see
=20
Between Fiction and the =E2=80=98Greater Truth=E2=80=99-Representation an=
d Reality in
Tom Wolfe=E2=80=99s" The Electric =E2=80=A6
M Regler - content.grin.com
Understanding Media Enjoyment: The Role of Transportation Into Narrative
Worlds
MC Green - Communication Theory, 2004 - Blackwell Synergy
Fiction and Nonfiction: Problems in the Study of Cuban Foreign Policy
DJ Fernandez - Latin American Research Review, 1990
(Oh and I have a very good book on foundational fictions for latin
america on my shelf, which forms part of my past as a Spanish lecturer -
talk about consequences - I was in Panama two weeks before and two weeks
after the US invaded (all sorts of fictions there) and also served as
translator/interpreter fir two representative s of the Cuban regime
visiting New Zeal;and, one of whom was a former companion of Che's now
that IS a foundational fiction of some epic proportions)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:51:03 +0100
From: Birger Sevaldson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: doctoral research schools
We are (once again) evaluating and looking into our education for doctoral =
students.
The problems we encounter are mainly concerned about time, relevance and fl=
exibility.
The projects of the candidates differ widely, and so do their competence, c=
oming from design practices to academic backgrounds. We encourage design re=
lated research including research by design projects. With an increasing nu=
mber of project-financed students they do not start at the beginning of our=
academic year (August) but can start up at any time when ever the project =
period starts. These students also need to finish within three years; they =
do not have the fourth teaching year a "normal" stipend financed doctoral s=
tudent has here. So time is short, need for diving into the particularities=
of the project immediately is great, no time for maturing, background is o=
ften young practitioner with super high level of knowledge on the subject o=
f research but practically no background from philosophy of science.
So we try to redesign our courses to be more flexible, more relevant and le=
ss time consuming.
I am sure there must be others facing similar challenges. There might most =
likely have been previous tracks and discussions on these topics. I would l=
ove to exchange ideas with you.
Best regards.
Birger Sevaldson
Professor PhD
Oslo School of Architecture and Design
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:46:00 +1100
From: Gavin Melles <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: doctoral research schools
Hello Birger
Some previous work has been done on this. The issues of time to completion,=
relevance (to who? student, industry etc), and flexibility (another term =
embodying a range of possible meanings - flexible curriculum choices, =
flexible enrolment possibilities, etc) are of general concern in the =
literature on doctoral education in general that I have read. I developed =
a list of ~150 doctoral programs (PhD, Professional doctorate, studio PhD, =
New Route PhD, other designations) in design in a range of countries and I =
am currently writing about the characteristics and significance of =
coursework in design research programs; as a particular angle on this set =
complemented by a survey of faculty (n=3D86) I undertook; it has some =
bearing on what you describe. In the UK, the New Route PhD has been =
something of a response to the issue of time etc. In addition, professional=
doctorates and studio research doctorates have been a response to the =
practice-based and professional needs and backgrounds of students. The =
overwhelming impression I get from the international scene is that =
structured coursework - assessed, compulsory but not assessed, and other =
formats, is very much the trend, building on the North American model
Dr Gavin Melles
Lecturer, Research Degree Skills
Faculty of Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Mob (03) 0402927278
>>> Birger Sevaldson <[log in to unmask]> 23/01/08 7:51 PM >>>
We are (once again) evaluating and looking into our education for doctoral =
students.
The problems we encounter are mainly concerned about time, relevance and =
flexibility.
The projects of the candidates differ widely, and so do their competence, =
coming from design practices to academic backgrounds. We encourage design =
related research including research by design projects. With an increasing =
number of project-financed students they do not start at the beginning of =
our academic year (August) but can start up at any time when ever the =
project period starts. These students also need to finish within three =
years; they do not have the fourth teaching year a "normal" stipend =
financed doctoral student has here. So time is short, need for diving into =
the particularities of the project immediately is great, no time for =
maturing, background is often young practitioner with super high level of =
knowledge on the subject of research but practically no background from =
philosophy of science.
So we try to redesign our courses to be more flexible, more relevant and =
less time consuming.
I am sure there must be others facing similar challenges. There might most =
likely have been previous tracks and discussions on these topics. I would =
love to exchange ideas with you.
Best regards.
Birger Sevaldson
Professor PhD
Oslo School of Architecture and Design
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:15:51 +0000
From: Luke Feast <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Is all writing fiction?
Dear list members
Very interesting thread...=20
The discussion of whether all writing is fiction can be considered in=20
relation to the (paradoxical) question of whether we have practices for=20=
making sense of entities as independent of those very practices.=20=20
=93The being of entities does not lie in the activity of encountering, bu=
t=20
the encounter of entities is the phenomenal basis, and the sole basis,=20=
upon which the being of entities can be grasped. Only the interpretation=20=
of the encounter with entities can secure the being of entities, if at=20=
all. It must be stated that the entity as an entity is 'in itself' and=20=
independent of any apprehension of it; accordingly, the being of the=20
entity is found only in encounter and can be explained, made=20
understandable, only from the phenomenal exhibition and interpretation of=
=20
the structure of encounter.=94 (Heidegger, 1985: 217)
According to Dreyfus and Spinosa (1999, 57), Heidegger would argue that,=20=
although the practice-based structure of encounter that gives us access t=
o=20
entities depends on us essentially, what we encounter only contingently=20=
depends on this structure. Then both our everyday and our scientific=20
practices could be understood, not as constitutive practices, but as=20
access practices allowing =93genuine theoretical discovering=94. (Heidegg=
er=20
1962: 412)
You can=92t have the skill for tying your shoelaces unless you have your=20=
hands on your shoelaces.
luke
Dreyfus, H.L. & Spinosa, C. (1999) =93Copying with Things-in-Themselv=
es: A=20
Practice-Phenomenological Argument for Realism=94, Inquiry 42, 49-78.=20
Heidegger, M., (1962
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:39:51 -0000
From: Eduardo Corte Real <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Is all writing friction?
Dear Ken, and Lubomir and Teena and others, Klaus and Ranulph , David
Ken provided us with the Merriam-Webster's definition of Fiction. I think we
should also take a look at the definition of "Write".
Besides the somewhat undefined definitions of (that could lead us to the
conclusion that all writing is friction) to form (as characters or symbols)
on a surface with an instrument (as a pen) b: to form (as words) by
inscribing the characters or symbols of on a surface c: to spell in writing
<words written alike but pronounced differently> d: to cover, fill, or fill
in by writing <wrote ten pages> <write a check> There is not any meaning
relating writing to science.
The following meanings relate writing to Literature and Poetics besides
writing a check and that sort of stuff. I think that Teena meant writing
different from any king of sign articulation.
One thing we may start to assume is that writing is not something that
Merriam-Webster relates to Science (since, in the meaning of writing,
Science is never mentioned). This may seem silly but, although some science
is written, writing is not the medium of science. Science aims to be
symbolized outside writing. This is to say that ultimately, science does not
want to express itself in the same medium as poetry or Literature.
Science, Scientia, knowledge is ultimately perturbed by writing because
writing is (willingly or not willingly) bound to be poetic, narrative, and
not scientific. Science, in the way Philosophy of Science had define it,
would want to make statements with mathematical formulations or models
outside writing. Writing (further than the troglodyte meaning of making
whatever signs and the highly sophisticated mathematical formulations)
requires a narrative that inexorably will gather logical propositions along
with analogical propositions and even not logical propositions. Science
requires only logical propositions, analogical propositions functioning as
logical propositions and not logical propositions working as negative
logical propositions. In the end, the scientific perfect discourse would be
not written but reduced to logical expressions of true or false value
conducting to conclusions. In that sense, words would be, as seldom are, use
to build logical expressions and not, in fact, Written expressions.
The usefulness of science (as socially certified accepted knowledge) is not
at stake here. The problem is that, other than pure mathematics, knowledge,
in order to be socially accepted as knowledge, still needs to be written
(and no one can prohibit written knowledge to be read as narrative).
In fact, the scientific system of producing and certifying knowledge seldom
requires writing as narrative.
So, why is writing fictional?
- Because writing is the original and most perfect symbolization
process of fiction.
- Because all un-fictional writing is willing not to be writing but to
be part of symbolization process other than writing.
- The organization of expressions through writing conduces to a
symbolization process that belong to the narrative domain and thus to
fiction.
I wouldn't move towards the notion of all known world be fictional although
I agree.
There must be a difference between a unicorn and a horse when I write fairy
tales or veterinarian manuals respectively.
Goodman also struggled with fictional beings regarding representation.
Goodman wrote that a drawing of unicorn although not representing anything
would be representational in nature.
Maybe we should agree (not concluding from Goodman) or admit that writing is
fictional in nature. The same is to say that the nature of writing is
fiction, although in its various forms, writing tries to be read beyond its
nature focusing on the aspects not natural to writing such as diagrams,
schemes, logical and mathematical formulations.
(Writing music, mostly, is not fictional in purpose but the written music is
always different from the music we play (especially the music I play L), in
that sense, written music is a fiction.)
So I wouldn't say that all writing is fictional but that writing is
fictional in nature. Thus we can start the argumentation that the writer
projects selfs or whatever on the written.
Cheers,
Eduardo
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:04:57 +1000
From: Norm Sheehan <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction? Fictive interaction References.
Hi All ... Some members have requested references for Fictive =
Interactions ... My memory was a little in error the paper I read was a =
PhD by Esther Pascual Oliv=E9 (2002) Imaginary Trialogues: Conceptual =
Blending and Fictive Interaction in Criminal Courts published by VRIJE =
UNIVERSITEIT Netherlands. The study involves language devices employed =
in Spanish & USA (San Diego) courts. I found this a really valuable =
complement to false consciousness studies.
Another source for the fictive dimensions of language is Gilles =
Fauconnier (1997) Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge University =
Press, New York USA.
A critical dimension of the all writing is fiction episode for some may =
be the area of epistemic violence - for example ... anthropologists =
study 'natives' then write and inform readers concerning the truth of =
these others becoming well paid experts on this truth while the persons =
who live this truth have no voice - and cannot correct the mistakes of =
the informant.=20
Norm
________________________________
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and =
related research in Design on behalf of Ken Friedman
Sent: Wed 23/01/2008 2:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
Dear Klaus,
While all fiction is invented, not all inventions are fiction.
Epistemological claims of this sort trouble me. They lead to the
problem of infinite regress. They also raise a problem. If everything
is fiction or everything is invented solely by language, it is
difficult -- perhaps impossible -- to make statements in the "is"
form or to argue for any view as against any other. If the world we
know is fiction, how can any position be better, more reasonable or
responsible than any other?
Perhaps I'm mistaken on this -- that is, wrong or incorrect or
inadequate, not simply adopting a different view -- but I'd argue
that there is a world, that some things in the world are indeed
taking place, and that these events and activities influence the
lives of human beings. We invent our lives and create the positions
and actions we take, but this does not make our positions, lives, or
actions fictional in their consequences.
Yours,
Ken
--
Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
If fiction is what is created by an act of invention -- as my
dictionary suggest, i'd argue more generally
THE WORLD WE KNOW IS FICTION
--
Merriam-Webster's defines "fiction" as:
"1 a : something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically
: an invented story b : fictitious literature (as novels or short
stories) c : a work of fiction; especially : NOVEL; 2 a : an
assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of
its truth <a legal fiction> b : a useful illusion or pretense; 3 :
the action of feigning or of creating with the imagination."
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:17:22 +0000
From: Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Doing and representing science
Hi, Eduardo,
Thanks for your note. Not sure if I can respond to this properly but I'll=
=20
try. I'm away from my own computer and answering via the webmail list=20
interface.
Two issues here seem to me require deeper reflection.
It's true that the definition of writing doesn't mention science, but tha=
t=20
doesn't seem relevant to this thread. One can define writing without=20
describing all the purposes for which one may employ writing.
Scientific inquiry doesn't require writing, but it does require=20
representation. Not all forms of science can be expressed in numbers,=20
however. Some forms of science require process descriptions in the form o=
f=20
words. Other forms of science require illustrations or models in the form=
=20
of drawings. I once read an article by a Nobel Laureate in chemistry who=20=
argued that you cannot do advanced research in chemistry without drawing.=
=20
Some kinds of scientific inquiry require several media of communication=20=
combined.
Research and scientific work take place in the mind. We represent researc=
h=20
results and scientific findings in spoken words, we represent them in=20
written text, we represent them in numbers, and we represent them in=20
images. This is how we document, codify, and share research and science.=20=
Most scientific description requires narrative of some kind, ebven in suc=
h=20
numerical fields as mathematics and physics. Further, it is through words=
=20
rather than numbers that we convey the meta-narratives of research that=20=
help us to explain assumptions, limits, processes, choices, and research=20=
decisions.
Best regards,
Ken
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:39:51 -0000, Eduardo Corte Real <eduardo.corte-
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>One thing we may start to assume is that writing is not something that
>Merriam-Webster relates to Science (since, in the meaning of writing,
>Science is never mentioned). This may seem silly but, although some=20
science
>is written, writing is not the medium of science. Science aims to be
>symbolized outside writing. This is to say that ultimately, science does=
=20
not
>want to express itself in the same medium as poetry or Literature.
>
>Science, Scientia, knowledge is ultimately perturbed by writing because
>writing is (willingly or not willingly) bound to be poetic, narrative, a=
nd
>not scientific. Science, in the way Philosophy of Science had define it,=
>would want to make statements with mathematical formulations or models
>outside writing. Writing (further than the troglodyte meaning of making
>whatever signs and the highly sophisticated mathematical formulations)
>requires a narrative that inexorably will gather logical propositions=20=
along
>with analogical propositions and even not logical propositions. Science
>requires only logical propositions, analogical propositions functioning =
as
>logical propositions and not logical propositions working as negative
>logical propositions. In the end, the scientific perfect discourse would=
=20
be
>not written but reduced to logical expressions of true or false value
>conducting to conclusions. In that sense, words would be, as seldom are,=
=20
use
>to build logical expressions and not, in fact, Written expressions.
>
>The usefulness of science (as socially certified accepted knowledge) is=20=
not
>at stake here. The problem is that, other than pure mathematics,=20
knowledge,
>in order to be socially accepted as knowledge, still needs to be written=
>(and no one can prohibit written knowledge to be read as narrative).
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:14:19 +0000
From: Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction? Fictive interaction References.
Dear Norm,
Thanks for the references. I'll get them and read them.
In the case you cite here, though, I'd suggest this is not fiction but=20=
bad, incorrect, or inadequate representation.
In an earlier response in this thread, I argued that the words or thought=
s=20
or ideas we attribute to others must belong to them. This is one aspect o=
f=20
my argument that there are forms of responsible representation that are=20=
not and cannot be fiction. No matter whose views you represent, it is=20
possible to record or transcribe their words and it is possible to check =
a=20
transcript. This may be more difficult with translations, and it sometime=
s=20
distinguishes the interpretation drawn from others's words -- but the=20
words belong to them.
What you describe here is not fiction, but bad representation. Depending=20=
on tne circumstances, we might used other words than "bad," but fiction -=
-=20
intensional art or imaginative construction -- is not the issue.=20
Ursula LeGuin writes fiction. She sets imagined yet surprisingly lifelike=
=20
men and women in imaginary cultures and circumstances to work out the=20
consequences of human nature as she sees it in these imagined worlds. Thi=
s=20
is art. To quote Picasso, LeGuin's art is "a lie that tells the truth."=20=
This is fiction.
The epistemic violence practiced by some of the paid experts you describe=
=20
is not a lie that tells the truth. It is a lie that remains a lie. Others=
=20
are simply mistaken in their reports. In neither circumstance, however,=20=
are the practitioners of epistemic violence fiction writers. They=20
represent what they seem to believe to be truth.=20
There may, of course, be some paid experts who knowingly present=20
falsehoods, willfully lying for various purposes. This is not fiction,=20=
either: the speaker or writer of such lies knows the truth and does not=20=
speak or write it. Some of the characters who promulgated the invasion of=
=20
Iraq fit that category.
I can understand what you describe as the "fictive" quality of some=20
writing, but I'd still distinguish this from genuine fiction. Words and=20=
voices belong to those who shape, write, or speak them. No matter=20
how "fictive" any text may be, no matter what our epistemology, anyone=20=
with a reasonably functional mind can quote or transcribe correctly.
As every novice journalist learns -- everyone can check quotes and fact=20=
(or the perception of facts) with sources. As journalists also learn, the=
=20
person who signs the article may differ from the source -- interpreting=20=
differently, describing differently. What is quoted or attributed to a=20=
=20
source belongs to the source. The choice of sources and the use of added=20=
or contrary sources belongs to the writer, along with interpretations and=
=20
conclusions.
When we try to represent sources -- or the voices of other real human=20
beings -- we move beyond fiction. As we should.
Yours,
Ken
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:04:57 +1000, Norm Sheehan <[log in to unmask]>=20=
wrote:
>A critical dimension of the all writing is fiction episode for some may=20=
be the area of epistemic violence - for example ... anthropologists=20
study 'natives' then write and inform readers concerning the truth of=20
these others becoming well paid experts on this truth while the persons=20=
who live this truth have no voice - and cannot correct the mistakes of th=
e=20
informant.=20
>Merriam-Webster's defines "fiction" as:
>
>"1 a : something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically
>: an invented story b : fictitious literature (as novels or short
>stories) c : a work of fiction; especially : NOVEL; 2 a : an
>assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of
>its truth <a legal fiction> b : a useful illusion or pretense; 3 :
>the action of feigning or of creating with the imagination."
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:20:13 -0500
From: Klaus Krippendorff <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
luke,
thanks for the citation.
you summarize them by saying: "You can't have the skill for tying your
shoelaces unless you have your hands on your shoelaces."
i disagree. you can have a skill but not use it at the moment. i would be
happier if you had said "you can't demonstrate the skill ..."
in any case
(1) you were writing
(2) the "unless" expresses a conditional ordering. since it is equally true
that there could be no such things as shoelaces unless you have hands and
the skill to tie them, .i would conclude that the practice of tying and the
recognition of something as shoelaces are learned together, define each
other mutually, one fitting the other.
(3) the one-way conditionality imposed on that practice reveals one's
epistemological commitments: objectivism or subjectivism, and in my
preference constructivism..
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Luke
Feast
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 6:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Is all writing fiction?
Dear list members
Very interesting thread...
The discussion of whether all writing is fiction can be considered in
relation to the (paradoxical) question of whether we have practices for
making sense of entities as independent of those very practices.
"The being of entities does not lie in the activity of encountering, but the
encounter of entities is the phenomenal basis, and the sole basis, upon
which the being of entities can be grasped. Only the interpretation of the
encounter with entities can secure the being of entities, if at all. It must
be stated that the entity as an entity is 'in itself' and independent of any
apprehension of it; accordingly, the being of the entity is found only in
encounter and can be explained, made understandable, only from the
phenomenal exhibition and interpretation of the structure of encounter."
(Heidegger, 1985: 217)
According to Dreyfus and Spinosa (1999, 57), Heidegger would argue that,
although the practice-based structure of encounter that gives us access to
entities depends on us essentially, what we encounter only contingently
depends on this structure. Then both our everyday and our scientific
practices could be understood, not as constitutive practices, but as access
practices allowing "genuine theoretical discovering". (Heidegger
1962: 412)
You can't have the skill for tying your shoelaces unless you have your hands
on your shoelaces.
luke
Dreyfus, H.L. & Spinosa, C. (1999) "Copying with Things-in-Themselves: A
Practice-Phenomenological Argument for Realism", Inquiry 42, 49-78.
Heidegger, M., (1962
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:30:20 -0500
From: Klaus Krippendorff <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
excellent questions
thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of teena
clerke
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:43 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
And are not dictionaries themselves inventions in writing? And do they not
chronicle, in a particular narrative genre, 'the world we know'? And do they
not select, use bias, omit and order 'knowledge'
in a particular way that privileges as it excludes?
I thought I was arguing more generally!
Language may be used in novel ways in relation to what precedes, ie.
existing genres of writing. Language is instrumental in writing.
Imagination is bounded by language. Even if visual, meaning-making is
learned within discourse communities, and central to discourse is language,
ie. thoughts experienced as words... or not? What do you think?
Is it possible to open up through designing what is bounded by language? If
the concept of design is limited to model making, then this precludes other
possibilities. Is it possible to open up language through designing?
And if you construct the binary truth/falsehood when making meaning of any
written statement, then there are no other possibilities beyond
'fiction/non-fiction'. And the line is drawn. Simple answer.
cheers, teena
If fiction is what is created by an act of invention -- as my dictionary
suggest, i'd argue more generally
THE WORLD WE KNOW IS FICTION
not just the world that appears in writing. think about the history of the
known world. how often have we reconceptualized it, revised it, transformed
it -- by using language in novel ways, by design, by imagining how to use
it.
klaus
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:46:30 +0000
From: Jurgen Faust <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: positive design conference in April, Mexico
I would like to draw attention to a design conference in the management
field which happens the 3rd time now. It started a few years ago with
managing designing and went then to positive design etc. Two books are
published one in Elsevier and the other other Stanford press. Here is the=
link:
http://daf.mty.itesm.mx/PositiveDesign/
It is already booked, but for a few interested people of this group here =
we
would have a few selected spots, if anyone interested please contact me a=
nd
let me know, so that I can make it happens. You will probably recognize a=
few familiar names.
All best,
Faust Jurgen
(Dipl. Ing. Prof. Design and Theory)
Chief Academic Officer,=20
Gruppo IED, www.IED.it
Istituto Europeo di Design
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
tel: +39 02 875130=20
fax: + 39 02 864347
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:49:35 +0100
From: Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
Dear Klaus,
Thanks for your reply. I'd argue that this is exactly where we start
to slide down that slippery metaphorical slope. There are three ways
to answer this.
In the post to which I replied, you wrote:
--snip--
If fiction is what is created by an act of invention -- as my
dictionary suggest, i'd argue more generally
THE WORLD WE KNOW IS FICTION
--snip--
The first answer is a version of Medieval logic-chopping. The world
we know is effectively the world there "is" so you can see how I
translated that into the claim that "everything is fiction." If _all_
you can ever claim to know is fictive, then the idea that everything
is fiction isn't that far a leap. If "every known thing is fiction"
how could we _know_ whether any one thing is fiction or not? This is
logic-chopping, so I'll stop here. Except for an irresistible touch
of Aristotelian cosmology: perhaps the world we know is fiction while
the heavens are not.
The first answer makes no sense.
The second answer is pragmatic. I'll agree that we create the world
through our understanding and our use of language and other symbols.
This is classic symbolic interactionism going back to the Mead-Blumer
tradition. But we do not create the world alone. We co-create it, and
we share it with others. We are not homunculi trapped within the
fallible frame of a nervous system watching the world by remote
control through the eyes of a giant whom we steer, a giant body whose
sensory apparatus is separate from ourselves, transmitting signals
that we sense. I'll agree that it is difficult to know the world, and
that we are often mistaken in our interpretations and understandings.
This situation is exacerbated precisely because we share the world
with other human beings, building our symbolic universe with them. We
understand and experience the world through the nomos of common
cultures. But this very fact also means that however imperfectly, we
create a world of common understandings based on some kind of reality
outside the private world of self and personal speech. Much as we
speak of intersubjectivity in scientific analysis, there are forms of
intersubjectivity that function in understanding common, shared
worlds.
No one is ever fully connected to a reality outside the interpretive
mechanism of our nervous system, but neither are we some sort of
radical creatures that a sixteenth-century philosopher might
describe. Saying reasonably that our experience of the world creates
the world for us, and saying reasonably enough that we have no true
access to the world except through our nervous system does not lead
to the radical claim that no world exists outside our nervous or the
equally radical claim that any world we can know is effectively
fiction simply because there is no form of absolute, knowable truth
or objectivity. To say we can never really know the world outside
except through the workings of our nervous system verges on the
"brain in a vat" argument. In fact, if the claims you make are so,
one might well argue that you have no real way to know whether what
you believe is so or not. You could be entirely mistaken without
knowing that you are mistaken. The epistemological problem here is
that your argument seems to rest on a double standard: you seem to
claim that the rest of us suffer from an epistemological problem
because we speak of things as if we believe that they are so -- and
then you argue as though what you believe is so.
I'll argue that even though there is a real world that we cannot
genuinely know in any comprehensive sense, we do know the real world
reasonably well. This is not a fictive world. Even though we
co-create our interpretation, experience, and understand of the world
through mechanisms that fit constructivist perspectives or symbolic
interactionist perspectives or pragmatist perspectives, these
descriptions explain how we interpret the world without any need to
claim that the world is a fiction.
The second answer seems reasonable enough to me. But there is a third answer.
The third answer is that we have evolved from earlier creatures
selected by the process of evolution. This process means that our
ancestors got here and stayed here because our nervous systems were
suited to understanding and interpreting the world in which they
found survivable niches. Those who were incapable of gaining
effective access to reality went extinct. The descendents of those
ancestors -- us -- can access the world through reasonably effective
nervous systems. We often interpret that real world badly, but the
world as many of us know it is not fiction simply because some of us
do badly.
If evolution is merely a fairy tale or one plausible scientific
account among others, this may not be so. If George Bush and his
creation science friends say that men started out as dust and women
started out as a rib. If that's true, I suppose we may not have
access to reality outside our nervous systems after all. This would
certainly explain a great deal about what has happened in the world
during the past eight years. Whatever the Lord has been blowing into
the president's nostrils, I'd argue that evolution accounts for the
rest of us.
If this is the case, it accounts for the properties of most designed
artifacts and the nature of the creatures we design them for. That,
in turn, rests on the real properties of the world and the fact that
we can access them reasonably through a nervous system that allows us
to do so. The properties of human being in human cultures shape our
interpretations of the world. In this sense, we create the world
through culture and through language. Our nervous systems give access
to a real world. I'd hesitate to say that our nervous systems
"create" the world in the same way that language "creates" the world.
The process of evolution suggests quite the contrary: the world
created the nervous systems, and these systems link us effectively to
the world except for people suffering from the kinds of neurological
or psychological problems of the kind we meet in Oliver Sacks's books.
There is an exception. Evolution apparently fails to explain some
politicians and those fundamentalists who stand four-square on the
literal Bible. Other than the elect and the elected, however,
evolution explains how most of us got here, and it explains some
aspects of how designers work.
Critical realism in several flavors, symbolic interactionism,
pragmatism, and constructivism in several flavors suggests that there
is a real world that we can access reasonably well without arguing
that "every known thing is fiction." Biology, evolutionary biology,
and evolutionary psychology would reach the same conclusion.
It seems to me that there is no epistemological problem here. In
contrast, I see serious epistemological problems in the radical claim
that "the world we know is fiction."
Yours,
Ken
>dear ken,
>
>your statement "(if) everyTHING is fiction ..." is not the same as "every
>known thing is fiction." if you confuse the two you get into epistemological
>troubles.
>
>how could you assume that the acknowledgement that the known world is
>fiction prevents you from deciding which one is better, more reasonable, or
>responsible? sure, some fictions are better than others. the point is that
>you can't talk about a world without talking about it. you don't have
>access to a reality outside of your nervous system that creates it.
>
>klaus
--
Ken Friedman
Professor
Dean, Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:19:57 +1100
From: teena clerke <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
And that is why you think the idea is radical Ken, because it is
problematic to you. And looking for definitive 'answers' is your way
of dealing with the problem. So you select from what has gone before
and rhetorically construct your story. From my standpoint, I am
looking for possibilities, so the idea does not seem radical to me.
cheers, teena
>Dear Klaus,
>
>Thanks for your reply. I'd argue that this is exactly where we start
>to slide down that slippery metaphorical slope. There are three ways
>to answer this.
>
>In the post to which I replied, you wrote:
>
>--snip--
>
>If fiction is what is created by an act of invention -- as my
>dictionary suggest, i'd argue more generally
>
>THE WORLD WE KNOW IS FICTION
>
>--snip--
>
>The first answer is a version of Medieval logic-chopping. The world
>we know is effectively the world there "is" so you can see how I
>translated that into the claim that "everything is fiction." If
>_all_ you can ever claim to know is fictive, then the idea that
>everything is fiction isn't that far a leap. If "every known thing
>is fiction" how could we _know_ whether any one thing is fiction or
>not? This is logic-chopping, so I'll stop here. Except for an
>irresistible touch of Aristotelian cosmology: perhaps the world we
>know is fiction while the heavens are not.
>
>The first answer makes no sense.
>
>The second answer is pragmatic. I'll agree that we create the world
>through our understanding and our use of language and other symbols.
>This is classic symbolic interactionism going back to the
>Mead-Blumer tradition. But we do not create the world alone. We
>co-create it, and we share it with others. We are not homunculi
>trapped within the fallible frame of a nervous system watching the
>world by remote control through the eyes of a giant whom we steer, a
>giant body whose sensory apparatus is separate from ourselves,
>transmitting signals that we sense. I'll agree that it is difficult
>to know the world, and that we are often mistaken in our
>interpretations and understandings. This situation is exacerbated
>precisely because we share the world with other human beings,
>building our symbolic universe with them. We understand and
>experience the world through the nomos of common cultures. But this
>very fact also means that however imperfectly, we create a world of
>common understandings based on some kind of reality outside the
>private world of self and personal speech. Much as we speak of
>intersubjectivity in scientific analysis, there are forms of
>intersubjectivity that function in understanding common, shared
>worlds.
>
>No one is ever fully connected to a reality outside the interpretive
>mechanism of our nervous system, but neither are we some sort of
>radical creatures that a sixteenth-century philosopher might
>describe. Saying reasonably that our experience of the world creates
>the world for us, and saying reasonably enough that we have no true
>access to the world except through our nervous system does not lead
>to the radical claim that no world exists outside our nervous or the
>equally radical claim that any world we can know is effectively
>fiction simply because there is no form of absolute, knowable truth
>or objectivity. To say we can never really know the world outside
>except through the workings of our nervous system verges on the
>"brain in a vat" argument. In fact, if the claims you make are so,
>one might well argue that you have no real way to know whether what
>you believe is so or not. You could be entirely mistaken without
>knowing that you are mistaken. The epistemological problem here is
>that your argument seems to rest on a double standard: you seem to
>claim that the rest of us suffer from an epistemological problem
>because we speak of things as if we believe that they are so -- and
>then you argue as though what you believe is so.
>
>I'll argue that even though there is a real world that we cannot
>genuinely know in any comprehensive sense, we do know the real world
>reasonably well. This is not a fictive world. Even though we
>co-create our interpretation, experience, and understand of the
>world through mechanisms that fit constructivist perspectives or
>symbolic interactionist perspectives or pragmatist perspectives,
>these descriptions explain how we interpret the world without any
>need to claim that the world is a fiction.
>
>The second answer seems reasonable enough to me. But there is a third answer.
>
>The third answer is that we have evolved from earlier creatures
>selected by the process of evolution. This process means that our
>ancestors got here and stayed here because our nervous systems were
>suited to understanding and interpreting the world in which they
>found survivable niches. Those who were incapable of gaining
>effective access to reality went extinct. The descendents of those
>ancestors -- us -- can access the world through reasonably effective
>nervous systems. We often interpret that real world badly, but the
>world as many of us know it is not fiction simply because some of us
>do badly.
>
>If evolution is merely a fairy tale or one plausible scientific
>account among others, this may not be so. If George Bush and his
>creation science friends say that men started out as dust and women
>started out as a rib. If that's true, I suppose we may not have
>access to reality outside our nervous systems after all. This would
>certainly explain a great deal about what has happened in the world
>during the past eight years. Whatever the Lord has been blowing into
>the president's nostrils, I'd argue that evolution accounts for the
>rest of us.
>
>If this is the case, it accounts for the properties of most designed
>artifacts and the nature of the creatures we design them for. That,
>in turn, rests on the real properties of the world and the fact that
>we can access them reasonably through a nervous system that allows
>us to do so. The properties of human being in human cultures shape
>our interpretations of the world. In this sense, we create the world
>through culture and through language. Our nervous systems give
>access to a real world. I'd hesitate to say that our nervous systems
>"create" the world in the same way that language "creates" the
>world. The process of evolution suggests quite the contrary: the
>world created the nervous systems, and these systems link us
>effectively to the world except for people suffering from the kinds
>of neurological or psychological problems of the kind we meet in
>Oliver Sacks's books.
>
>There is an exception. Evolution apparently fails to explain some
>politicians and those fundamentalists who stand four-square on the
>literal Bible. Other than the elect and the elected, however,
>evolution explains how most of us got here, and it explains some
>aspects of how designers work.
>
>Critical realism in several flavors, symbolic interactionism,
>pragmatism, and constructivism in several flavors suggests that
>there is a real world that we can access reasonably well without
>arguing that "every known thing is fiction." Biology, evolutionary
>biology, and evolutionary psychology would reach the same conclusion.
>
>It seems to me that there is no epistemological problem here. In
>contrast, I see serious epistemological problems in the radical
>claim that "the world we know is fiction."
>
>Yours,
>
>Ken
>
>
>>dear ken,
>>
>>your statement "(if) everyTHING is fiction ..." is not the same as "every
>>known thing is fiction." if you confuse the two you get into epistemological
>>troubles.
>>
>>how could you assume that the acknowledgement that the known world is
>>fiction prevents you from deciding which one is better, more reasonable, or
>>responsible? sure, some fictions are better than others. the point is that
>>you can't talk about a world without talking about it. you don't have
>>access to a reality outside of your nervous system that creates it.
>>
>>klaus
>
>
>--
>
>Ken Friedman
>Professor
>
>Dean, Swinburne Design
>Swinburne University of Technology
>Melbourne, Australia
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:17:18 +0000
From: David Durling <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Fwd: US Debate on practice PhDs
I thought that this article, which apparently appeared in the 2 =20
November 2007 issue of the USA Chronicle of Higher Education, may be =20
of interest to members of phd-design list too.
---
HOW EDUCATED MUST AN ARTIST BE?
By Daniel Grant
Job security is a relatively new concept in the ancient field of
teaching art. Historically artists have created, and been judged
on, their own credentials - that is, their art. And the master
of fine-arts degree, often described as a "terminal degree," or
the endpoint in an artist's formal education, has long been
sufficient for artists seeking to teach at the college level.
But significant change may be on the horizon, as increasing
numbers of college and university administrators are urging
artists to obtain doctoral degrees.
We shouldn't be surprised; the M.F.A. has been under attack for
some time now. The M.F.A. has become a problem for many
administrators, who are increasingly uncomfortable with
different criteria for different faculty members. They
understand the lengthy process required to earn a doctorate - of
which the master's degree is only a small, preliminary part -
and see hiring a Ph.D. over an M.F.A. as the difference between
buying a fully loaded showroom automobile and a chassis.
Administrators like the background Ph.D.'s have in research,
publishing, and grant writing (though if their principal concern
were the teaching of studio art to undergraduates, they wouldn't
focus so much on the doctorate).
Holders of M.F.A.'s - often adjunct instructors or would-be
instructors at universities - have noticed the trend, and many
believe that their degree holds them back in a realm where
advancement and larger salaries go to Ph.D.'s.
The most recent development in the studio-doctorate trend is the
creation of the new Institute for Doctoral Studies in the Visual
Arts in Portland, Me., which offered its first classes this past
May for a Ph.D. program in philosophy, aesthetics, and art
theory. A studio M.F.A. is a prerequisite for admissions, and
the institute's president claims that the program "will provide
rigorous training that will help artists expand their studio
practice." His aim is to turn artists into theoreticians of art,
fully versed in critical theory and able to teach it at the
college level, but still be practicing artists.
Other doctorate programs can be found at the University of
Rochester, Ohio University, and Texas Tech University (though a
large percentage of their students have performing, literary, or
studio-art backgrounds). More may be on the way: The School of
the Art Institute of Chicago, the California Institute of the
Arts, and the Rhode Island School of Design are expected to be
offering studio doctorates within the next several years.
Studio doctorate programs do have high-minded and practical
aspects. They try to make artists better versed in critical
theory, which would presumably be helpful for their art, and to
help graduates get and keep university jobs. Another benefit of
a doctoral degree, artists and university administrators say, is
the ability to teach a wider variety of courses, such as classes
in art theory and history, previously the province of art
historians. However, the first goal has yet to be achieved - can
anyone name a great Ph.D. artist of our time? - and the second
merely indicates what is wrong in academe, which is that it
elevates credentials over everything else.
And what of the students? Students by and large want their
studio instructors to be working artists. In fact, art schools
and university art departments promote their studio faculty
members to prospective students in terms of those
artist-teachers' presence in the art world, their commissions,
or their work in the realm of nonprofit and for-profit
galleries.
I am not opposed to artists who want to pursue doctoral programs
in critical theory. My complaint is that, without a doctorate,
professional artists are finding it increasingly difficult to
get and keep a full-time job with benefits teaching B.F.A. and
M.F.A. students.
M.F.A. and Ph.D. programs move in different directions. Earning
an M.F.A. means spending another year or so in the studio,
developing a body of work that, ideally, prepares students to
enter the art market. The program is a timeout from the world of
galleries and selling that helps graduates re- enter that world
more successfully after graduation. Doctoral programs, on the
other hand, are research-based.
Pushing artists toward doctoral programs fundamentally changes
their focus and goals. The Ph.D. says to the university, "I am
committing myself to aca- deme," whereas the M.F.A. primarily
reflects a commitment to developing one's skills as an artist.
Requiring studio artists to become researchers as well would
diminish their ability to keep one foot in the exhibition world.
Some might be able to do it all - teach studio art, research,
publish, and exhibit - but not many. There are only so many
hours in a day.
Devaluing the M.F.A. or making the doctorate the fine-art
world's terminal degree is likely to drive away professional
artists who have a lot to offer in terms of guidance and
example. Having active, commercially viable artists working in
colleges and universities is something that should be
encouraged. Are we likely to have artists of high caliber
employed at the college level if they are required to undergo an
academic program that takes five or six years, rather than just
one or two? Requiring a Ph.D. is also likely to drive artists
away from art, as time spent working on the dissertation equals
time away from the studio. Some artists may leave the field of
fine arts entirely, becoming theoreticians, historians, and
fine- arts scholars instead of practitioners.
Inevitably, the years spent focused solely on theory will
diminish other areas of instruction. The training of artists has
already largely moved away from techniques and skills - how many
artists now can mix their own paints or even know what is in the
paints they buy? - and toward theory. Concept-based art is what
a good many schools already encourage their students to create.
The current training of artists barely maintains a delicate
balance of studio practice and art history, criticism, and
theory. Could such a balance be maintained with professors whose
education is weighted so heavily on the side of theory? It
hardly seems possible.
Another scenario is that the same type of instruction currently
offered will continue to exist but will be provided by
overqualified instructors. Aestheticians, rather than working
artists, will teach basic drawing. Performing-arts faculties at
some universities are already seeing plenty of this. (A friend
of mine, a pianist who studied at the Juilliard School, Oberlin
College, and the New England Conservatory, needed to obtain a
Ph.D. in music to get a job as an adjunct teaching students at
the University of Vermont how to play the piano.) Writers, too,
are being told to get doctorates in order to teach college
students. The M.F.A. in creative writing is losing its hold, as
more and more writers seeking college-level teaching work are
choosing doctoral programs that have a "creative dissertation"
requirement.
The shift toward requiring Ph.D.'s is likely to be slow and
uneven, as some institutions will balk at the trend while others
jump in with both feet. But ultimately more graduate schools
will have to create studio doctorate programs to meet the
demand.
We are already on the slippery slope. Before we slide any
farther, we should set out what is actually desired in the
education of artists; what is the balance of manual, perceptual,
and conceptual skills that artists need to have; and to what
ends are those artists being trained. Judging artists on the
basis of their academic credentials rather than of their art,
and devising programs that lead them away from making art, is
absurd and ahistorical. University departments of art history,
the likely employers of this new hybrid group, should reconsider
this focus on academic qualifications. Do we really want to turn
the creation of art into a thing of the past?
Daniel Grant is a contributing editor for American Artist
magazine and author of Selling Art Without Galleries: Toward
Making a Living =46rom Your Art (Allworth Press, 2006).
Copyright =A9 2007 by The Chronicle of Higher Education
_______________________________________________
David Durling PhD FDRS | Professor of Design
School of Arts & Education, Middlesex University
Cat Hill, Barnet, Hertfordshire, EN4 8HT, UK
tel: 020 8411 5108 | international: + 44 20 8411 5108
email: [log in to unmask] | [log in to unmask]
web: http://www.adri.org.uk | http://www.durling.info
http://www.dartevents.net
_______________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:26:53 +0100
From: Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Cheers -- [was Is all writing fiction?]
Teena,
The word "radical" does not mean that a concept is problematic. I
agree that the idea that "the world we know is fiction" is
problematic to me, but labeling it radical uses a common meaning of
the word.
--snip--
3 a : marked by a considerable departure from the usual or
traditional : EXTREME b : tending or disposed to make extreme changes
in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions
[from Merriam-Webster's]
--snip--
This is not pejorative nor does it necessarily describe problems. I
do have problems with the notions that all writing is fiction or the
world we know is fiction. Nevertheless, I use the word radical in its
dictionary sense to describe a dramatic and bold departure from
common epistemology and ontology.
Your decision to tell me what I think and why I think it brings an
unpleasant tone to the conversation. I've stated a difference of
opinion in a conversation on philosophies of science -- possibilities
if you will. I have disagreed. I have not claimed to know your
thoughts, nor have I attributed motives to you as the reason for your
assertions.
Your rhetoric does not suggest a willingness to look for
possibilities. You make a truth claim about me in the "is" form.
While you argue that all writing is fiction, you write as though you
know the truth.
Attributing motive to my views transforms the nature of the
conversation. It is time for me to withdraw from this thread.
Cheers indeed.
Ken
>And that is why you think the idea is radical Ken, because it is
>problematic to you. And looking for definitive 'answers' is your way
>of dealing with the problem. So you select from what has gone before
>and rhetorically construct your story. From my standpoint, I am
>looking for possibilities, so the idea does not seem radical to me.
>
>cheers, teena
--
Ken Friedman
Professor
Dean, Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:02:45 +1100
From: David Sless <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Is all writing fiction?
Klause tells us to
> beware of people who think they can talk of a world that exists =20
> outside language
I agree
But Klause later goes on to say:
> all i did is chiming with teena saying (my paraphrase) that everything
> written is written from a particular perspective, are colored by =20
> ideological
> lenses and vested interest in the subject matter, relying on a =20
> vocabulary
> and syntactical structures that cannot possibly accurately represent =20=
> what
> actually happened. although people might believe reading non-=20
> fiction gains
> then access to what actually happened, this belief is illusionary.
It seems to me that talk of 'what actually happened' is 'talk of a =20
world that exists outside language'
I have no difficulty accepting
> that everything
> written is written from a particular perspective, are colored by =20
> ideological
> lenses and vested interest in the subject matter, relying on a =20
> vocabulary
> and syntactical structures=85
That seems totally uncontroversial and a given, but the next bit about =20=
'what actually happened' is where I get lost.
This goes to the heart of what I find problematic about the assertion =20=
that all writing is fiction. The statement only achieves its =20
rhetorical force if it is contrasted with the dismissed non-fiction. =20
If non-fiction is not possible the assertion is hollow. In the end =20
this is just playing with language.
Perhaps we should be silent about the things we cannot talk about (or =20=
some such phrase).
David
--=20
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:53:44 +1100
From: Keith Russell <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: radicals and roots
While Ken quotes the more common and US understanding of the possible
negative uses of the term "radical", the word also has better uses.
Radical comes from "root" - so a radical is one who believes there are
roots to problems, issues etc.
If we determine the root of the problem we can eradicate the problem,
once and for all because we have pulled the weed up, roots and all.
For S T Coleridge, the serious effort was the attempt to radicate things
- find the roots.
Some of the discussion on fiction has been about pulling up weeds, some
about determining the roots of things in order to know and provide a
better account.
Some has been about just having a good old logical flirtation.
cheers from a free radical
keith russell
OZ newcastle
------------------------------
End of PHD-DESIGN Digest - 22 Jan 2008 to 23 Jan 2008 (#2008-18)
****************************************************************
|
