Dear Colleagues,
In the current discursion on reality and fiction we went too far in
one direction. We talk about hearing many voices, but we would like
to hear only our voice. That is a paradox from a scholarly point of
view and natural situation from a political point of view.
We basically revolve within one frame of reference, heavily anchored
in linguistic studies. Linguistic approaches are interesting,
fascinating and productive in a number of disciplinary areas. I am
not sure they are powerful enough to resolve the basic question of
philosophy -- the relation between idea and matter (material).
Overreliance on language and interpretation of words rather than
concepts can lead us to a circular argument, to logical errors, and
false sense for discovery.
When applied to the most general philosophical questions,
disciplinary approaches become reductionist. They reduce the
complexity of the world to the nature of their domain. I agree that
with a linguistic approach we can view many phenomena from a new
angle and discover new aspects. Linguistic approaches are very
productive when studying aesthetical phenomena. However, we should
always be aware of the reductionism of linguistic approaches when
applied to areas that are broader than the scope of their applicability.
Language is very important, but it is only an instrument of
communication. You can not convince me that the instrument is more
important than the activity where it is used. And you can not reduce
the act of communication to language. You can afford this only for
particular projects, with full awareness for the consequences.
In the current discussion there are several logical mistakes. One of
them is substituting writing for research. Part of the problem
started from this substitution. Writing is not research. We use
writing in research to communicate our findings, to write our
research reports. Many people believe that they write a paper. They
write a research report. Without research, there is nothing to write
about. If we accept this position, we will be able to get a way from
the linguistic reductionism.
Another error. Blurring institutional boundaries and nature to the
point when institutions loose their essence and cease to exist. Let's
start with an institutional analysis. Science is a social
institution. Literature (and fiction) is a social institution. These
are two different institutions, with different social functions,
structures, standards, and norms. If we accept this point of view, we
might see that we are comparing apples and oranges. The function of
science is discovery, while the function of design, art, and
literature -- invention. (I simplify to save time.) In order to
actualize these functions, we need to create completely different
epistemological and methodological systems. One system emphasizes
finding and truth (as much as it is possible) and the other system
emphasizing creation, invention, making something that haven't been
around before.
An institutional analysis will also help us understand why science
and design are two different things. I understand that most of the
design researchers will be unhappy to hear this, and we will keep
that discussion for another time. Not now. However, many of the
conundrums of design research can not be solved if we do not respect
the institutional differences between science and design.
Another problem is the extreme agnosticism that some people hold. I
would not engage in dissuading them. World-class philosophers have
argued pro and con, so I am not in a position to make a better
argument. At our level of philosophical expertise, I would suggest
that we reject agnosticism. Otherwise, to hell with science. We don't
need it because by definition it can not bring us knowledge about the
world. We better engage in religion and interpret the holly
scriptures. By the way, an extreme linguistic and agnostic approach
would not interfere with our engagements if we use a hermeneutic
frame of reference. Some people will dispute that and I am ready to
revert, but I will make a concession at this time to my colleagues. I
am trying to see the things from both sides.
I can accept that the world is a social construction (actually, that
is my position), but to claim that the world is a fiction, is more
than extreme. There is a big difference between social construction
and fiction. As terms, they are obviously different. But they are
also different as concepts. These are different concepts, created in
different intellectual traditions, with different purposes, intended
to function in different discourses. When you use them in synonyms it
is very easy to make a logical error. This discussion continues
because of logical errors, incorrect substitutions, and erroneous outcomes.
Thank you for attention,
Lubomir
|