Thanks Ken
My comment wasn't intended as a rebuke - sharp or otherwise - it was communication - a message.
With hindsight, perhaps I referenced something specific as a way of making a very general point about what I saw as an over commitment to the cosmology of science and to words and to the fundamental difficulties of escaping this in the format of a discussion list, and to the difficulties of getting past the intellect - to consciousness and to experience. Perhaps this was a leap of imagination and I conflated the topics Jinan has been discussing with others I have been concerned with elsewhere.
You seemed so blithe to belittle religion and mysticism as the antithesis of scientific research in relation to design ( that was what I thought this list is concerned with - design) and I was rather alarmed by this as imagination, spiritually, instinct and intuition are such huge personal and universal aspects of humanness.
I think it is extremely unlikely that we are ever going to be on the same wavelength on this - so II'll retreat back into the depth and magical beauty of the forest...
All best
Fiona
www.a-brand.co.uk
Current:
https://vimeo.com62286983
________________________________________
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Ken Friedman [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 23 April 2013 08:17
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Language
Dear Fiona,
I did not make an argument against intuition or embodied ways of knowing. But Jinan did not argue for them. His post made scientific claims about literacy and the role of literacy and language in human development. My post focused on these claims and on the claim that two renowned scholars favored orality and opposed literacy when they did not.
The arguments posted here against language and literacy resemble the naïve naturalism of the eighteenth century and some mystical traditions today. The claim that there is a “real” world in which human beings can “be” without language rests on personal assertion or on revealed truth, that is, mysticism or religion. No contemporary research supports these views. These claims overlook a century and a half of work in philosophy, scholarship, and science.
Let’s be clear: I am not talking about design or creativity. Neither was Jinan. Jinan made claims about language and literacy and I responded to those claims.
Jinan also claimed that Stephen Toulmin and Harold Innis argue against literacy and for orality. They did not. This is a research discussion list. When we claim support in the work of renowned scholars, we ought to read their work rather than asserting a position based on second-hand or third-hand accounts.
You state that we have been writing about these issues “in the West during a mere century.” Western thinkers and writers have examined these issues for more than twenty-five centuries. This is also the case for Eastern thinkers and writers. During the last century, however, we have developed an array of methods and tools that did not exist in centuries past.
Nothing in my comment “negate[d] or surpress[ed] imagination and intuitive, embodied ways of knowing.” What I negated was the misuse of Toulmin and Innis to support Jinan’s views. I also argued against a shallow account of language in human development.
My response to Jinan was explicitly limited to these two issues. Rather than reading these limited comments as specific, you drew broad, general conclusions about my views on imagination, intuition, creativity, design, and embodied knowledge, along with my views on the nature of knowledge itself.
You extended your broad, general reading of two comments to judge my views on a massive range of different issues without reading anything I’ve written. Based on an inaccurate and judgmental reading, you’ve issued a rebuke, admonishing me to “wake up and witness what is going on in the world and learn from it.”
You write, “Global knowledge is changing Ken - merging, deepening, evolving...and it requires less thinking and more being and experiencing.”
How can you know at a distance what I think or experience except through what I write? I made no assumptions about Jinan’s being or experiences. I criticized his scientific claims about language and his claims about Stephen Toulmin and Harold Innis.
To “witness what is going on in the world and learn from it” requires that we account accurately and honestly for what we observe. Jinan’s post was careless and inaccurate. He was not willfully dishonest, but his misuse of Toulmin and Innis was dishonest to their writings.
Your sharp rebuke seems unwarranted. “It is time to wake up” suggests that I wrote carelessly. In my view, you did not take enough care in reading a careful note.
Yours,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Mobile +61 404 830 462 | Home Page http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design/people/Professor-Ken-Friedman-ID22.html<http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design> Academia Page http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman About Me Page http://about.me/ken_friedman
Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China
--
Fiona Jane Candy wrote:
--snip—
you are really giving away your committment to the intellect and its bullying, ‘big headed’ position of actively negating or suppressing imagination and intuitive, embodied ways of knowing in your recent reply to Jinan’s very enlightening post when you wrote:
“...The shift to an argument against language itself moves into the realm of religion and mysticism. Your claims are apparently not based on research or on a serious engagement with the scholars you cite or the disciplines they represent.”
Is this design you are talking about? Creativity?
Global knowledge is changing Ken - merging, deepening, evolving...and it requires less thinking and more being and experiencing. I know its a tricky one for an email discussion list whose currency is words and writing about what other people have written ( in the West during a mere century) but its time to wake up and witness what is going on in the world and learn from it......
--snip--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
