Dear all
I feel that perceptions of my comments as an attack on science require a
separate response because this really is not the point I am addressing.
I am more interested in the ways that design holds the potential to
supersede (social) science as a methodology for developing socially
responsible and environmentally sustainable knowledge.
The agency of the image/object impacts on us all because in their
generation image/objects become things-in-themselves & so exhibit
agency. Gell states that image/objects are not texts and so they cannot
be analysed as if they are ... they do not speak so they cannot be
interpreted ... but they do draw us into conversant relations concerning
their meaning,,, thus their agency is secondary to our (social) viewing
but significant (vital in Indigenous Knowledge terms) because
image/objects index by abduction to the meanings we negotiate in their
vicinity. Such conversations/negotiations can be interpreted. Thus
image/objects achieve a version of life in these relations that may
sometimes be essential to a facet of living culture as evident in the
ways that we speak in their presence. Thus in terms of my thesis the
agency of the image/object draws our cognitions out into the world where
the form of our thinking in interaction may be discerned.
This thesis positions design as a revealing agent for individual and
group cognisance in some contexts of viewed image/objects - regardless
of the terms/values/import we assign to these image/objects (primitive;
scientific/technical or artistic/expressive & all the rest) because such
terms are a fact of the revealing - all these terms support the thesis
even (perhaps especially) when we contest them. When we argue concerning
the existence of this agency it may be just one more conversation
spurred by the agency of the image/object. Whatever we may say in the
context of image/objects our sayings reveal aspects of our standpoint in
relation to self, others and the world. Well structured interactions of
this kind with image/objects foster a situated intelligence that we may
apply to investigate such standpoints and their consequences in the
actual context of our living. This is the Indigenous Knowledge
(Indigenous Science for you Lubomir) project in my thesis.
As I say to my students this is why Aboriginal people painted
philosophical conceptions rather than writing them- because
image/objects draw-out and reveal our thinking and the outcomes of our
thinking in the context of our speaking about them -so we may learn ways
to negotiate within the realm of an external (to our cognition) agency.
Such context relevant training (relational education) affords the
development of methodologies that sustain living contexts. Most
significantly Indigenous knowledge (science) involves the design of
visual and oral ways for the drawing-out of thinking & for revealing the
working understandings implicit in the ways groups inhabit social space
and the significance of these social features for environmental places.
Norm
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Lubomir S. Popov
Sent: Monday, 30 July 2007 3:29 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Colonialism -- a Carefully Delimited Response
Sceince is a game. And as a game, it is a Judeo-Christian game. Like
it or not, that is the way. If you don't like the science game, play
another game, e.g. joga, religion, myth, etc. I mentioned several
times that science is an institution, and as an institution, it is
peculiar to Western culture. The main function of the science
institution (here I disclose my Modernist, functionalist self) is to
produce knowledge. However, science is not the only
knowledge-production institution. Myth and religion are example of
other social institutions that produce knowledge.
Science is endemic to Europe and North America, after the
Renaissance, at the time of Modernity. In the Twentieth century, it
spread all over the world. At that time, science has developed
prestige and everybody wanted to do science and present
himself/herself as scientist. Even the magicians. By the way, Magic
also produces knowledge.
I don't see any reason to hybridize science with other forms of
knowledge production. Such hybridization will be counterproductive in
terms of assumption about the nature of the world, knowledge, and
method. In this regard, I can not accept attempts to subvert science
by eclectically adding new elements that are incompatible with the
main principles of science.
So, what koalas, what bears, what little girls you are talking about?
If you want to do magic, you welcome. Do it, produce knowledge, be a
Harry Potter. As you see, magic still has millions of followers in
Europe and produces billions of dollars. I have no problem if someone
is writing about magic and doing magic, and opening magic schools. We
as a society are at the verge of getting into this magical way of
escaping from our daily and future problems. By the way, Europeans
did that staff with magic several centuries ago. Then Christianity
took a stand against magic and put hundreds of people on the stakes.
Then Science took revenge over Christianity.
Europeans lived in the bush and ate raw meat until 15 centuries ago.
Science is not the perfect solution, but please, show me a better
one. What pulled Europe ahead of China was Science. Europe was far
behind China. The European barbarians didn't know what to do with the
Roman cities and simply destroyed them in order to vent their
frustration with their own backwardness and inability to create.
However, show me which other mode of knowledge production offers more
reliable information, more inquisitive power, and better
understanding of the world. Other systems have contributions here and
there, but as a whole the risks of following these systems far
outpace the benefits. One day we may learn to levitate and would not
need aviation. But until then, the key world is airplane, not the
magic rug of little Muck. And like it or not, without science you
would not gave Boeing and Airbus. You will travel on your little
rags, on donkeys. That said, I would like to emphasize that I am not
Positivist, although I bear some influences from Positivism, and as
you notice, use some of its concepts. It's about developmental
rudiments.
By the way, some of the terms and references are used loosely. You
might object that usage, but try to keep with the spirit of
communication.
Kind regards,
Lubomir
|