what is the supposedly recognizable form of knowledge?

i think knowledge is an unfortunate objectification/abstraction of the 
first-person claim of understanding something and the third-person account 
of someone having acquired  cleverness in doing something better than chance.

knowledge makes an object of the process of knowing.  what is its form that 
you can recognize?

lets not be governed by epistemological unawareness of the language we are 


At 12:08 PM 9/28/00 +0100, Chris RUST(SCS) wrote:
>Tim Smithers said:
> >seems to me to fall into the trap that Terry
> >identifies for the case of "design".  To suggest
> >that scientific knowledge, or any kind of knowledge,
> >as an aim is to invest it with a kind of property,
> >and, it seems to me, a kind of agency.
> >
> >Knowledge (of any kind) has no aim or aims, nor does
> >it have any specific purpose, though it can be
> >used in relation with specific aims or purposes by
> >those who poses the knowledge.
>I feel that there are two quite different cases here. Terry raises the spectre
>of a something which we call "Design" that we may believe to exist but may not
>really understand at all other than through more specific concepts such as
>"designing", or "a design for..."  (I rather like this idea, it could lead us
>to abandon the concept of Design Research, Design Education or a Design
>Profession and force us to get real jobs)
>Knowledge on the other hand does have some recognisable forms. More
>importantly, Tim may be right about knowledge in the most general sense of the
>term, but the knowledge which might arise in or from research has, or should
>have, consequences (thank you Michael Biggs, I hope I haven't corrupted your
>use of "consequence" too much).
>In the context of designing, I believe strongly that one of the key issues for
>a designer is the knowledge that informs their designing and we have found 
>encouraging students to investigate wider areas of knowledge has allowed them
>to develop more specifically useful design ideas. Thus the consequences and
>"agency" of the knowledge may not be explicit until the designer has digested
>it but they were there all along in the sense of knowledge having potential to
>be an agent of change.
>Best wishes from Sheffield
>Chris Rust