Dear Richard,
I am watching this discussion with interest and happy for new references (from you, Ken and Don) and the discussion. I have not yet had time to follow the papers – but I will. I share interest as I used sensory methods in my fieldwork (body mapping) as a way to explore the body memory.
I understand experiential memory as embodied knowledges. I have not read the paper you mentioned at the start and the reason for the post. I would like to.
Bruno Latour describes the body as the means to learn to be affected; we register and become sensitive to the outside world and by “focusing on the body, one is immediately – or rather, mediately – directed to what the body has become aware of” (Latour, 2004).
I also believe this discussion has some connections with the decolonising design movement – in particular, the necessity for decolonising epistemologies and how the Western world places more importance on some knowledges and not others. Many body-based therapies work with the experiential memory (can be trauma and/or creative energy) – Peter Levine, Gabor Mate and Dan Siegel.
Some Eastern philosophies believe the mind is in the body. de Sousa Santos states all knowledge is embodied and Escobar discusses Orlando Fals-Borda’s – Sentipensar –(think/feel) in his work. I am not sure we have the equivalent in the English language – I hope somebody may take this up in the conversation.
I would be happy to continue this on/offline as I too am very interested in the topic –
Warm regards,
Britta Boyer
PhD Doctoral Candidate
Institute of Design Innovation
Loughborough University, London
www.brittaboyer.com<http://www.brittaboyer.com>
Reference:
** Forgive the lack of dates as my references need some work but at least you can find the sources**
de Sousa Santos, B., Phipps, A., Christodoulidis, E., Schneiderman, D., Cutler, C., Baxi, U., … Harrington, J. (n.d.). Beyond Abyssal Thinking: From Global Lines to Ecologies of Knowledges* (Published in Review, XXX-1-2007).
Escobar, A. (n.d.). Thinking-feeling with the Earth: Territorial Struggles and the Ontological Dimension of the Epistemologies of the South. https://doi.org/10.11156/aibr.110102e
Latour B. How to Talk About the Body? the Normative Dimension of Science Studies. Body & Society. 2004;10(2-3):205-229. doi:10.1177/1357034X04042943<https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X04042943>
From: PhD-Design <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, 17 March 2021 at 21:22
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Tacitly explicit implications
I am coming around to the idea that the nature of tacit knowledge is sufficiently hard to pin down so that there are a few reasonable competing positions on this. A similar condition applies to the Gibson/Gregory debate and the mind/body debate.
What matters is that one´s position is made clear and the reader can either A) accept that position with or without agreeing or B) disagree wholly and stop reading.
Quite some years ago I had a paper about urban matters rejected in part because my basic position was rejected and not because I had made a hash of explaining myself**. The only way I was going meet the approval of the reviewer was to abandon my standpoint and adopt their standpoint (helpfully provided). That is a bit like asking a Marxist economist to swap the Marxism out for some Hayek or vice versa.
I mention this because I think with respect to tacit knowledge there are a few principle positions on this much as in economics there are some main standpoints. What we ought to be asking of an argument is whether the points marshalled in its favour are at least plausible and not arguing the right of the writer to take that stand point at all. In another field, economists can proceed from a Keynesian standpoint without having to justify Keynesianism before even proceeding to the point they want to make.
Having written that, I am aware of the risk of my point being seen as a get-out-of-jail-free card for people who want to hold positions of dubious merit. However, I would propose that the way to respond to plausible but contentious positions is to write a counter-argument and not, as my esteemed urban planning peer did, refuse to accept my basic position in the first place (which I hasten to add is not an issue in today´s discussion).
**the paper was eventually published (after 18) months without anyone ever noticing it!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
