Dear Friends,
Rather than provide a definition for knowledge, I have more confidence on understanding what it means through the use of the word.
Here follows a selection from a text by Giorgio Agamben about Aby Warburg “nameless science"
Agamben：
Aby Warburg and the Nameless Science
https://s3.amazonaws.com/arena-attachments/65239/Giorgio_Agamben_Aby_Warburg_and_the_Nameless_Science.pdf
I call your special attention to paragraphs 3 and 4.
1. "In this context, the problem that must be immediately posed to Warburg's thought is a genuinely philosophical one: the status of the image and, in particular, the relation between image and speech, imagination and rule, which in Kant had already produced the aporetic situation of the transcendental imagination. The greatest lesson of Warburg's teaching may well be that the image is the place in which the subject strips itself of the mythical, psychosomatic character given to it, in the presence of an equally mythical object, by a theory of knowledge that is in truth simply disguised metaphysics. Only then does the subject rediscover its original and--in the etymological sense of the word--speculative purity (1).
2. "The symbol and the image play the same role for Warburg as the "engram" plays in Semon's conception of the individual's nervous system; they are the crystallization of an energetic charge and an emotional experience that survive as an inheritance transmitted by social memory and that, like electricity condensed in a Leydan jar, become effective only through contact with the "selective will" of a particular period. This is why Warburg often speaks of symbols as "dynamograms" that are transmitted to artists in a state of great tension, but that are not polarized in their active or passive, positive or negative energetic charge; their polarization, which occurs through an encounter with a new epoch and its vital needs, can then bring about a complete transformation of meaning. (18) For Warburg, the attitude of artists toward images inherited from tradition was therefore conceivable in terms neither of aesthetic choice nor of neutral reception; rather, for him it is a matter of a confrontation--which is lethal or vitalizing, depending on the situation--with the tremendous energies stored in images, which in themselves had the potential either to make man regress into sterile subjection or to direct him on his path toward salvation and knowledge.”
(…)
3. "For Warburg, the symbol thus belongs to an intermediary domain between consciousness and primitive reactions, and it bears in itself the possibilities of both regression and higher knowledge. It is a Zwischenraum, an "interval," a kind of no-man's-land at the center of the human.”
(…)
4. The name "Mnemosyne" finds its true justification here. The atlas that bears this title recalls the mnemotechnical theater built in the sixteenth century by Giulio Camillo, which so stunned his contemporaries as an absolutely novel wonder. (23) Its creator sought to enclose in it "the nature of all things that can be expressed in speech," such that whoever entered into the wondrous building would immediately grasp the knowledge contained in it.”
(…)
5. "For a science that wants to remain faithful to its own law, what is essential is not to leave this "circle of understanding," which would be impossible, but to "stay within it in the right way." (25) By virtue of the knowledge acquired at every step, the passage from the part to the whole and back again never returns to the same point; at every step, it necessarily broadens its radius, discovering a higher perspective that opens a new circle. The curve representing the hermeneutic circle is not a circumference, as has often been repeated, but a spiral that continually broadens its turns.”
(…)
6. "The least unfaithful way to characterize Warburg's "nameless science" may well be to insert it into the project of a future "anthropology of Western culture" in which philology, ethnology, and history would converge with an "iconology of the interval," a study of the Zwiscbenraum in which the incessant symbolic work of social memory is carried out. There is no need to underline the urgency of such a science for an epoch that, sooner or later, will have to become fully conscious of what Valéry noted thirty years ago when he wrote, "the age of the finite world has begun." (33) Only this science would allow Western man, once he has moved beyond the limits of his own ethnocentrism, to arrive at the liberating knowledge of a "diagnosis of humanity" that would heal it of its tragic schizophrenia.”
(…)
7. Perhaps the fracture that in our culture divides poetry and philosophy, art and science, the word that "sings" and the word that "remembers," is nothing other than one aspect of the very schizophrenia of Western culture that Warburg recognized in the polarity of the ecstatic nymph and the melancholic river god. We will be truly faithful to Warburg's teaching if we learn to see the contemplative gaze of the god in the nymph's dancing gesture and if we succeed in understanding that the word that sings also remembers and the one that remembers also sings. The science that will then take hold of the liberating knowledge of the human will truly deserve to be called by the Greek name of Mnemosyne.
(…)
And, of course we must not forget Foucault’s "L’archeologie du Savoir”. How could Foucault define his “epistémès” if not by reading, seeing, interpreting objects of symbolization that contain knowledge?
Isn’t his concept of archeology dependent of the existence of knowledge latent in “buried” objects?
Best, regards,
E.
> No dia 26/07/2017, às 10:06, Salisbury, Martin <[log in to unmask]> escreveu:
>
> Dear Ken,
>
> Despite your intimidating list of dos and don'ts for potential responders, what you say is correct, and mirrors exactly what i have been thinking (though I like to think that opinion… and blather... when not pretending to be fact, is allowed on this list?). As you say, unless there is agreement on what is meant by 'knowledge' and 'information' (and the relationship between the two), the conversation is meaningless. And I won't miss the opportunity to mention that these regular discussions about the meanings of words consolidate my views on the limitations of word language in relation to other forms of communication. It's a little like discussions about 'drawing'. In my experience they inevitably fizzle out as it becomes clear that everyone has a completely different perception of what the word means.
>
> Is there an issue here (again) about verb and noun? You are correctly suggesting that only conscious beings can 'know'. But perhaps it does not automatically follow that things/ artefacts cannot contain knowledge? I see the word 'container' in this context as describing an object that facilitates the transfer of knowledge from one person to another. The object might sit there for a thousand years undiscovered, only to be stumbled upon to reveal the previously unknown. Trajan's column contains and reveals knowledge about the Dacian wars. In this case, the knowledge is expressed through pictorial narrative. And most people would (in my opinion) agree that a book can 'contain' knowledge.
>
> In my view, for a practitioner, more knowledge is gained by looking at great paintings than by reading what critics, or artists for that matter, have written about great paintings. So I am using the word 'knowledge' to express the knowing that is transferred to me directly by the painting. Of course my ability to process and use it may be limited compared to others. The knowledge will be used it in different ways by different receivers. The same may be said of a poem or a piece of music. As you know, i am not an engineer (I did pass my maths O-Level exam though, to the astonishment of my school master (sorry, I'm blathering)). But I would suggest that if someone dismantles and reassembles an old radio, that radio has given them knowledge. The radio, if sealed and preserved for a thousand years and rediscovered, would pass on the knowledge of how a radio had been made a thousand years ago. It would, in my use of the word, 'contain' that knowledge.
>
> When I use the word, 'Information', I am referring to factual or statistical matters. But of course, as in most things, the boundaries blur. Eduardo's simple hammer, it seems to me, contains in its purposeful form, the information that gives us the knowledge about what it is for. A Charles Rennie MacKintosh chair contains knowledge, not only of what it is for, but of the unique stylistic motifs and ideas of its designer.
>
> Perhaps this just a long-winded version of what Charles Burnette has written and which I have only just seen!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Martin
>
> Professor Martin Salisbury
> Course Leader, MA Children's Book Illustration
> Director, The Centre for Children's Book Studies
> Cambridge School of Art
> 0845 196 2351
> [log in to unmask]
>
> http://www.cambridgemashow.com
>
> http://www.anglia.ac.uk/ruskin/en/home/microsites/ccbs.html
>
>
> ________________________________________
> 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: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 8:09 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: knowledge containers
>
> Dear All,
>
> Despite my resolve to avoid this thread, I am struck by a repeated thought: not one of the posts so far has defined the key terms that are being used. I made it clear ― as no one else has ― that I did *not* provide adequate information and wrote only a short post. To adequately define my terms and links them in a joined-up note on these topics would require a much longer comment. In that sense, I was offering my opinion, and not a reasoned argument.
>
> We’ve also had a post challenging us to write about what we know, rather than simply offering opinions. Now, in this case, I acknowledge that I was offering an opinion. It was an opinion in the form of a short essay about something I know about and on which I have worked. (I gather that Heidi is working on these issues, but she offered only a few comments.)
>
> Let me therefore ask a question of all those who assert that artifacts contain knowledge or are, in some way, packed with knowledge.
>
> What do you mean by the word “knowledge”?
>
> What do you mean by the verbs “know” and “knowing”, as contrasted with the noun “knowledge”?
>
> How does an inanimate artifact contain knowledge? What do you mean by the word “contain”?
>
> What is “information”, as contrasted with knowledge?
>
> As Martin wrote in his note to me, these are genuine questions. I know what I mean by these words, and I’ve offered modest and partial thoughts in some of my short comments. I’ve also written about these issues ― you can find a fairly lengthy discussion in a book chapter titled “Creating Design Knowledge,” at
>
> https://www.academia.edu/250735/Friedman._2000._Creating_Design_Knowledge_From_Research_Into_Practice
>
> a proceedings article titled “Design Knowledge: Context, Content, Continuity,” at
>
> https://www.academia.edu/6806893/Friedman._2000._Design_Knowledge_Context_Content_Continuity
>
> and in a book chapter I wrote with Johan Olaisen titled “Knowledge Management,” at
>
> https://www.academia.edu/6806949/Friedman_and_Olaisen._1999._Knowledge_Management
>
> These are all about twenty years old. I would probably write them slightly differently If I were to rewrite these today, but the major issues have not changed, so these offer a reasonable statement of my views. If several of the other participants wish it, I’ll post a serious note here ― *if* they are also willing to describe their position carefully.
>
> I’m not asking anyone to agree with me or to use the same sources in developing their definitions, but I do want to know what people mean by these words. I hope for serious replies: no accusations of blather ― but no blather, either. Statements of personal predilection that don’t join up into a coherent statement don’t do much good in a serious discussion of epistemology. Neither, for that matter, do tautologies or meaningless propositions. The notion that books contain knowledge because books define knowledge is meaningless until one can explain what it is that one means by the term “knowledge,” and it remains meaningless until one can explain how an artifact “contains” what this is.
>
> So there it is. This is a serious enough question that I am willing to write and post a careful response *if* the rest of you are willing to state what you mean by these terms, and to state how these terms form a reasonable position on these issues. I don’t need you to you agree with me. I think it reasonable to propose that you agree with yourself ― that is, to ask that the various elements of your position form a joined up and coherent account.
>
> Trigger warning: writing my answer to these questions requires a long post. If a long, carefully written post subjects you to distress, don’t ask.
>
> If, on the other hand, you are prepared to respond to these questions, I’m ready to consider your reply. On a research list, a careful and well written post is more appropriate than mere assertion of opinion.
>
> Or so I believe,
>
> Ken
>
> Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Tongji University in Cooperation with Elsevier | URL: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/
>
> Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| Email [log in to unmask] | Academia http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> TAKE CARE: this message originates from an email service outside of our University. Do not click on any links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and are absolutely sure that the content is safe
>
>
> --
> Please click here to view our e-mail disclaimer http://www.anglia.ac.uk/email-disclaimer
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
