I have strong opinions about Foucault and the discussion of content. After all, I wrote a widely accepted text book on content analysis challenging some of the metaphors I read in these posts.
However, all I want to direct your attention to a recent (2017) book by sloman and fernbach titled: "the knowledge illusion; why we never think alone".
The two authors are cognitive scientists who break with the assumptions of their discipline according to which thinking takes place in the brain.
It supports my contention that most designs are accomplished in conversation or interaction with others and that design thinking is an individualist illusion.
klaus
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 26, 2017, at 1:39 PM, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear Eduardo,
>
> This is a quick reply to your post. To argue that you "have more confidence on understanding what it means through the use of the word” begs the question, as many of your earlier comments have been vague, based on circular definitions.
>
> I will make one historical correction. Whether or not Giorgio Agamben knew the name, Aby Warburg’s work was not a “nameless science.”
>
> Warburg himself gave his institute a name in Germany, Kulturwissenschaftliche Bibliothek Warburg. After moving to London, it became the Warburg Institute. The science of Kulturwissenschaft can be translated in several ways — whichever among them one uses, the science has a name.
>
> Warburg also practiced and contributed to the disciplines of iconology and iconography.
>
> The issues you identify in Foucault rest on word games. Again, there is metaphorical truth to what you write — but you use the metaphors to paper over epistemological problems. To say that Foucault’s “concept of archeology s] dependent of the existence of knowledge latent in ‘buried’ objects” confuses half a dozen issues. Foucault’s archeology is itself a metaphor. Foucault dug up nothing and he unearthed nothing, so there were no buried objects to contain latent knowledge.
>
> It is your privilege to insist on making knowledge claims. It is mine to challenge these claims for inaccuracy on historical grounds (Agamben on Warburg), and on philosophical grounds (Foucault).
>
> I would be delighted to see you step up to the plate to state clearly what you believe knowledge to be, rather than to claim that containers contain the knowledge that is contained in knowledge containers. To bury us in a long passage from Agamben — admittedly an interesting philosopher — tells us nothing about what you understand about knowledge “through the use of the word.” It is your understanding that I am asking about.
>
> Yours,
>
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|