Re: [-empyre-] Writing Culture

[Kenneth Newby <knewby@sfu.ca>]

Boundary objects... lovely!!   This is so important.  Agreeing on 
common objects and establishing bridges is all part of the important 
work of re-integration that needs to take place.  The challenge becomes 
greater as we move the bridge-building out of the domain of science to 
construct bridges across more diverse epistemologies.  Visual, audible, 
tactile, etc. ways of knowing the world, ourselves and each other?  I 
look forward to reading Star and Bowker's thinking on this.

The work of thinkers in epistemology who attempt the re-integration of  
these different ways of knowing/thinking are of much interest to me for 
that reason.  As long as we silo ourselves into different 
knowledge/writing cultures and maintain the view that ours if the only 
valid way of knowing/writing the world, the divisions will work towards 
that doomed state Roman refers to.

Otto Laske wrote that we encounter a new species of knowledge when we 
encode a creative process in the computer... we bring an inscribing 
process from a place in ourselves that is often difficult to fathom -- 
deeply embedded skills working below the level of awareness, creative 
habits, tacit knowledge about a creative process or embodied skill -- 
and externalize it in the formal environment of software running on a 
machine.

Kenneth.

P.S. the URL to Geoffrey's chapter selections from the book is broken.  
Too bad!

On 10-Oct-05, at 9:42 AM, Bill Seaman wrote:

> Susan Leigh Star and Geoffrey C. Bowker in their text Sorting Things 
> Out: Classification and its Consequences, define the notion of the 
> Boundry Object: