Posted by Yon Bard on March 01, 1999 at 14:26:48:
In Reply to: Re: Hey Brother, Can You Spare a Paradigm? posted by Michael Wendorf on March 01, 1999 at 09:26:58:
: : I think you overstate the matter when saying 'we cannot even agree on how to describe the technical structure of a rug.' Some of us may be more competent in performing a structural analysis than others, but I am unaware of fundamental differences of opinion on what constitutes a proper analysis. And any lingering doubts should be allayed by books such as Marla Mallett's 'Woven Structures.'
: : The concern about who will win the contest over the internet paradigm shift seems to be misguided. There will always be a range of interests from the purely commercial to serious collectors to scholarly researchers etc., and they will each continue to ply their interests - with, we hope, at least some commonality of interests between the latter two categories. I think the internet can only strengthen this connection, by more easily bringing the fruits of the researchers' findings to the attention of the collectors, and the collectors' attic treasures to the attention of the researchers.
: : Regards, Yon
: Dear Yon:
: Ok, let's assume that anyone joining the discussion will read Marla Mallett's "Woven Structures" and adopt its terminology. Does that establish any paradigm consensus or framework within which we can work and raise anomaly's that would lead to a shift of a paradigm? Maybe, but I don't think so. The real issue then
: is whether or not there is a convention that allows us to look at and understand rugs. I still do not see such a paradigm.
: Of course, we need not get too hung up on Kuhn's theory or a paradigm, but it is convenient to help us look at where we are and where we are not. I hope the Internet facilitates better understanding or I and we are wasting a lot of time and energy, but look at how few people are contributing to something like Turkotek compared to something like EBay. What conclusion, if any, do we draw from that? It seems to me most people are still interested mostly in commerce and self promotion. There's nothing inherently wrong with that its just that we should not let ourselves, in my view, get caught up in all the hype. Is the Internet a good thing? Yes. Is it going to revolutionize the world? I don't know if or how. Years ago people looked at Television and probably radio in the same terms we talk about the Internet. While these media offer many good things, they also offer and promote things that mostly clutter and make our world even more vulgar than it need be.
: Regards, Michael
My point about structursl analysis was intended as a simple statement of what I believe to be a fact: There is no real controversy on how to describe the structure of a rug.
On the matter of paradigm shift, doesn't it all boil down to a question of semantics: exactly what is a paradigm? The internet has already changed the way we (at least some of us) do things, in ways that, depending onn your tastes, you may or may not consider profound enough to constitute a 'paradigm shift.' For example, the way I carry on correspondence has changed, I think profoundly: In many cases I do now, where I didn't before. It certainly changed the way we discuss rugs with our peers, again creating many exchanges of views that would never have taken place before. These are qualitative, not just quantitative changes. And one of the nicest thing about the internet is that everyone can use its capabilities in their own way - the buyers and sellers have their ebay, the philosophers have their salons, and the pornographers have their peep shows, so there is no reason why each of us cannot shift their own paradigms without worrying about other folks' paradigms.
Post a Followup