List:
I have hesitated to jump into the conversation on the topic of knowing/knowledge because I am neither a philosopher nor a debater. But I am a communication designer, exegete, and student of hermeneutics and therefore offer this contribution to these threads.
Ken Friedman pointed out we are using words sloppily in some cases and offered definitions. Rather than duplicating his etymological work, I call upon the structure of language, the difference between nouns and verbs, objects and processes, to draw a distinction between knowledge: a thing possessed, and to-know: a state of mind and/or process. I'm focusing here on knowledge formation, in particular how explicit (Polanyi's term) knowledge is formed, though to-know and knowledge are not so easily separated.
I believe behind different concepts of knowledge are historic differences of view on deriving meaning from texts (or images). Since the beginning of serious though on this topic the role of the author, the text (or picture), and the reader have born different emphases. Some emphasized the responsibility of the reader to find the intended meaning of the author. Some emphasized the role of the reader in constructing meaning. Some emphasized the codes and structures of the text.
By “since the beginning” I mean back to the beginning of the common era (AD) and Biblical models of interpretation where some focused on literal interpretation giving weight and honor to the authors - apostles’ and prophets’ - intended messages, others interpreted allegorically de-facto emphasizing the reader’s interpretive ability to find hidden meanings within the text, and still others counted the occurrences or the letter H in a text.
Fast forward to the 20th century. Strongly different emphases on the author, the text, and the reader took new forms, perhaps most notably Barthes and Derrida. They questioned the function (the existence) of the author and emphasized the formation of meaning by individuals guided-by/controlled-by social contexts/powers. Others, Hans-Georg Gadamer for example, held a middle ground where the reader is in dialogue with influence of the text and the constraints of their own personal “horizon,” a person’s horizon being the cultural, social, personal forces beyond which one cannot see. Others, contemporarily Grant Osborne and Kevin Vanhoozer, emphasize text as an enacted intention and advocate analysis of the text within its original contexts in order to discover the author’s intended meaning before interpreting the text personally.
These debates have theological shadows. Those emphasizing the author tend to believe in god as a starting point, those emphasizing the reader believe tend to believe in man as a starting point.
All I have shared above is filled with simplification and therefore some degree of inaccuracy, but the summary I have assembled in good faith, trying to be as balanced and accurate as possible, is to make this point. Behind the idea of knowledge lie ideas about the ability to share experiences through communication.
Behind this is the belief that the process of knowing is both individual and communal. Due to personality quirks (introvert), I believe knowledge starts individually with sensory observation/experience and finds verification (affirm what’s observed) and amplification (learn things related to my observation/experience) through communication with others who have had similar experiences. My experience becomes knowledge through communication. Others, perhaps due to their personality, emphasize the social aspect of knowledge, that knowledge emerges from community interaction starting with the interaction of mother and child. Regardless, I argue here that communication is a key to converting knowing to explicit knowledge, and that our views of how communication functions (how meaning is derived, hermeneutics) lies behind much of what we have been discussing related to knowledge/to-know.
Those who emphasize the autonomy of the reader see knowledge as a personally experienced constructed thing guided by/controlled by social forces. In this end it's socially-constructed set of beliefs. Those who emphasize the author see knowledge as truth and therefore something from outside to be discovered. In this end it's an objective thing 'out-there' like a book. Of course, these two views - strong author/strong reader - are places (I won’t say ends) on a continuum with innumerable points between as well as having various possibilities for both to be true to some degree simultaneously.
Some on the list have emphasized the knower, arguing that knowing is an act of a living person. Some have emphasized the encoded form, the text as an embodiment that evokes living knowing. Some have argued the person as a living neural code, knowledge as mental activation patterns. I see all these a having some degree of truth in the threads on knowledge/to-know, so long as we are clear what we are discussing (communication). And I have argued here that these are influenced by how one views communication: authors, texts, readers.
This list is a communication device. Is knowledge happening here?
Do books contain or transmit knowledge? Based on the above, knowing cannot be in a book because a book is an object, but knowledge can be in a book because a book is a thing, a codified knowing that can be de-coded if one has the ability.
I hope this adds apt nuance to these threads and that it that helps someone, somewhere, make a connection and stimulates their knowing more than I know.
Mike Zender
University of Cincinnati
[log in to unmask]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
