 |
 |
Dear Chuck and Eduardo, The real issue here, for me, is what Baumgarten means by ³rational² knowledge. We tend to forget the historic distinctions between rational and empirical knowledge such that when we talk about the scientific method we collapse them together such that initial empirical evidence (gained through the senses in relation to observed phenomena in the real world) is then sorted/organised/theorised using rationality. In Baumgaretnıs time, rationality was chiefly treated as abstraction devoid of sensory content and hence science was going nowhere fast. The danger is that we treat aesthetics as the left over bits of sensory knowledge that we donıt yet know how to be rational about. It is a lot like tacit knowledge where the fact of the knowledge is treated as WOW while the content of the knowledge is treated as secret. Cheers keith On 20/10/2015 9:07 am, "PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design on behalf of Charles Burnette" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote: >Or, so I believe, >Chuck >>On Oct 19, 2015, at 9:44 AM, Eduardo corte-real <[log in to unmask]> >>wrote: >>Aesthesis deals with with non rational knowledge. Thatıs why Baumgarten >>invented the word. It means that is not "science knowledge (that) only >>adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower". It is >>precisely the part of science knowledge that is not scientific that adds >>excitement, mystery and awe. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------