Lubomir,
Your are right. So implicit was my sense that indeed "we have to research the artifact in order to "reconstruct" the knowledge embodied in it" that I forget to say it as such!.
So i will now say that is exactly what we have to do. But notice that what this opens to is not only the knowledge embodied but also (at least in part) the processes of translation and passage from understanding to its investiture in the object (configuration) and its consequent apprehension and appropriation (no matter how indistinct and seemingly instinctive/resistant to conscious thought such apprehension might be).
Best wishes
Clive
Clive Dilnot
Professor of Design Studies
Parsons School of Design/
New School University
Room #731, 7th Floor
6 E16th St
New York
NY 10011
T. (1)-212-229-8916 x1481
>>> Lubomir Savov Popov <[log in to unmask]> 11/24/2010 5:01 PM >>>
Dear Keith,
I want to thank you for your concise and powerful remarks. And I would like to thank Cleve for a great post and a very eloquent presentation.
I don't know why people shy away of saying directly that we have to research the artifact in order to "reconstruct" the knowledge embodied in it. Clive practically said this at the very end of his post, but still shied a bit away from a strong statement.
The very idea that the artifact embodies knowledge is one beautiful metaphor. It is very useful for a number of purposes. But I would not use it to equate an artifact by itself with the knowledge embodied in it. I will evidently have hard time convincing the design world about this.
I have nothing against the idea of embodied knowledge if it is used correctly. I myself use it very often from a dialectical materialist perspective. There was a lot of talk in that paradigm about embodiment of knowledge and about knowledge. Actually, they were obsessed with gnoseology for a number of reasons.
I consider several foundational problem areas when defending this position: the nature of knowledge, the dialectics of knowledge, the artifact as a natural object (when it is treated as an object of research), the dialectics of natural--artificial, and the dialectics of design--research. This can make a pretty nice essay, but unfortunately I work in a different area right now.
Best wishes,
Lubomir
-----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 Keith Russell
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:39 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: whether a cell phone is knowledge
Dear Clive
a very fulsome and attractive account of knowledge and objects.
Could we simply say that for those who know how to translate the language of an object (or parts of the language) that the object embodies an amount of knowledge equal to what they can derive?
And
for those who don't know how to translate, the object of attention is like the coke bottle in The Gods Must be Crazy where basic utility functions (and mytho-poetic realisations) are derived but little else?
Which kind of leaves us with what you know you know and what you don't know you don't know.
cheers
keith russell
from a wet Melbourne
|