 | Re: ants |
|
If I were to accept his ideas, i might suggest the BIS is an artefact of knowledge. Ant might also credit the BIS with being an actor in its own right...however i am pretty sure that CCK would not. In Ant the BIS could be seen as a non-human actor that has impact, note this is not to suggest agency. I really dislike the behaviourist slant on stimulus response. It suggests too lineal approach whereas with changes the effects are very often non-lineal, not known, and/or not anticipated. I am more than happy to accept a more spider-web analogy. Movement here creates movement there. Law of physics maybe. But not because of proximity, in actor-network terms, the connection or movement has to be traceable. Some off the cuff thinking: when i write (and only speaking for myself here) I clarify my thinking...sometimes i dont know my thinking until i am writing, seems it grows in the thinking...what's written captures this, at least some of this...and very often that thinking or knowledge would not have occurred without the writing...is there knowledge then in the writing? With my mobile phone, I outsource some of my thinking, I don't bother memorizing phone numbers. In writing too I outsource some of the details of my thinking. For example I don't attend to who said what very often. Its just new thoughts I accommodate and which alter other thoughts... sometimes unconsciously... often unconsciously. But I still have to get it inside of my head for it to have an effect. Those books on a shelf that might in common parlance be 'holding knowledge' don't interact to produce new knowledge without some intermediaries (people). But people also don't often produce new knowledge in isolation, they interact with something, whether its the artefacts of knowledge (books etc) or other people thinking aloud or doing things that trigger further thinking. |