JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  January 2008

PHD-DESIGN January 2008

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: language and fiction

From:

Klaus Krippendorff <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Klaus Krippendorff <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:14:42 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (141 lines)

dear ken,

you are saying:
"one kind of epistemological baggage would be the notion that we cannot sort
out reasonably well that some things have happened, even though we did not
see them or experience them personally. 
That's what historians do -- imperfectly, as Victor notes, but not
unreasonably"

i don't think there is an epistemological baggage involved when historians
try to SORT out REASONABLY WELL what happened.  

what you don't seem to get is that SORTING things out means rearranging
things, selecting what fits, omitting what doesn't, putting things into
plausible categories, filling in gaps, creating narratives from texts and
artifacts that survived the time between an event that may have occurred in
the past and the time of writing a history of it.  surely, as i suggested
earlier, historians do not record the past the way video cameras would.
they make it interesting, relevant, and far shorter to read than what they
describe.  good history is a creative enterprise as every historian will
readily agree. (bad historians are not particularly creative)

yes, in composing their narratives, historians are REASONABLE, employ
REASONS for their claims.  plausibility is an important criterion for all
stories. perhaps more important is coherence.  coherence has nothing to do
with representational truth but much with the claim that things hang
together logically, are REASONABLE, can withstand critical examination by
competing historians who would dismiss a history if they contained
contradictions. 

if fiction is created, composed, sorted out and rearranged for others to
make sense of, as i suggested, history is fiction with the claim that it is
based on what happened.  their representational truth is not accessible.  

klaus 

-----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 Ken
Friedman
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 5:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: language and fiction

Friends,

It seems to me that many people on a list such as this don't know what
people do to understand and assess the evidence of events and accounts that
they have not themselves experienced.

For reasons not worth explaining, I occasionally read material on distant
moments in history, attempting to sort out questions of how memory and
transmission work, and trying to distinguish between genuine historical
accounts of what people believed or said to each other. (This includes the
possibility that what they told each other may not have taken place.)

Historians such as Victor will understand the difficulty and the importance
of this task. If all accounts are fictional, one must ask whether we have
any reason to believe any account -- including an account of something we
believe that we observed happening today at lunch. It is true that all
accounts are imperfect and selective, but I'd argue that some kind of
epistemological and political baggage accompanies the notion that we cannot
know and say anything reliable about the past.

Is history simply a tale told by the victors? 
Isn't there some way to know whether there was or was not a Holocaust?

In October, 2006, the science journal Nature published a study estimating
the civilian death toll in Iraq that resulted from the US-led invasion at
655,000. George Bush called the study flawed, claiming that the research
methods were "discredited." Bush stood by his proposed estimate of 30,000
civilian deaths to that date. 
Are both accounts fictional? Is there some reasonable way to sort them out?

The issue of epistemological baggage has come up here several times. I'll
try to answer for my baggage when I respond to Klaus. At this point, I'll
suggest that everyone in this debate is carrying some kind of
epistemological baggage.

For those who want to learn a little more about how historians sort through
information that comes from our own planet at times long, long ago and
places far, far away might enjoy reading Birger Gerhardsson's work. He works
with accounts that go back to stories and traditions written down long after
the events described took place, and shows how historians sort through these
kinds of issues.

There is a more recent series of accounts that will be known to some of you.
For many years, scholars insisted that the Iliad and the Odyssey count not
have been composed and memorized in oral form by one man. In the twentieth
century, a scholar named Milman Parry travelled around, finding bards who
memorized and recited huge epic oral poems. Another scholar named Albert
Lord carried the line of inquiry forward. Today, scholars agree that
lengthy, detailed accounts can survive in an oral tradition relatively
intact. Those who know the scaldic tradition of the sagas will know similar
traditions. I'm not saying any of these accounts repeat true events
-- I do not believe that Odin hung for nine nights on a tree or traveled
about with two ravens named Hugin and Munin. But I certainly believe that
people carried these tales forward for centuries in unwritten form, along
with accounts of battles, royal deeds, and genealogy.

Things grow dim with distance in time space. But one kind of epistemological
baggage would be the notion that we cannot sort out reasonably well that
some things have happened, even though we did not see them or experience
them personally. 
That's what historians do -- imperfectly, as Victor notes, but not
unreasonably.

Ken

--

Gerhardsson, Birger. 1964a. Memory and
Manuscript. Oral Tradition and Written
Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity. 2nd Edition. Lund:
C. W. K. Gleerup.

Gerhardsson, Birger. 1964b. Tradition and Transmission in Early
Christianity. Lund: C. W. 
K. Gleerup.

Gerhardsson, Birger. 1977. Evangeliernas förhistoria. Lund: Verbum-Håkan
Ohlssons Förlag.

Gerhardsson, Birger. 1979. The Origins of the Gospel Tradition.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Gerhardsson, Birger. 2001. The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition. Peabody,
Massachusetts: 
Hendrickson Publishing.

--

-- 

Ken Friedman
Professor

Dean, Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager