At about 11:00 Dr Tim Ingold explains, why knowledge of inhabitants (e.g. knowledge of indigenous or traditional societies about their environment) is ignored or undervalued, compared to scientific knowledge.
Tim is brilliant and his understanding of what Environment means is first rate. I have one small issue with what he says, and that deals with his rejection of the concept of traditional to describe Indigenous knowledge. From my experience, traditional refers more to the philosophical foundation and practices employed to generate such knowledge than to "a body of static knowledge" as he implies. New knowledge can constantly be generated by traditional means and practices, much in the same way that new knowledge or findings can be generated by Western "science". Both are conceptual approaches, rather than static bodies.
You might feel that way, but in public discourse traditional knowledge = static knowledge. You have to be aware of your audience when trying to engage new or not widely known ideas
I get what he's saying. Most of the global south implies the existence of "local wisdom" that is often perceived celebratory, where culture = traditional dances, rituals, and artifacts. While local philosophies can be included within the discourse, I think what Tim was implying was that the institutionalization of the meaning of "culture" has instead render it serving the neoliberal "sustainable development" rhetorics and narratives. In countries, such as mine, Indonesia, the preservation of "local wisdom" as something that is "static" and "passed-on by predecessors," as Tim said, is formalized in education and policy practices as a way of objectification; to control the development of local knowledges as something that is dynamic.
the method of inquiry learning proved to be successfully taught by Prof Tim in his book; Anthropology, Archeology, Art and Architecture. Isn't this method first practiced by the 70s Paulo Freire with the term liberating education? I admire both of them.
An interesting example of his thesis is that before colonisation of Australia there were no devastating bushfires such as we see today. The first nation's people practiced land management through controlled burnoffs. The so called experts are now calling on the Indigenous knowledge .
More often than not the interests of governments align with major corporations. They are "wealth generators". When all you have is capitalism everything starts to look like a marketplace
Also, what is to be done when there are multinational corporations that can pick and choose which laws to follow depending upon their location. US elected officials seem to being doing nothing to actually exercise controls or regulations over these so-called "tiny major corporations"
At about 11:00 Dr Tim Ingold explains, why knowledge of inhabitants (e.g. knowledge of indigenous or traditional societies about their environment) is ignored or undervalued, compared to scientific knowledge.
Tim is brilliant and his understanding of what Environment means is first rate. I have one small issue with what he says, and that deals with his rejection of the concept of traditional to describe Indigenous knowledge. From my experience, traditional refers more to the philosophical foundation and practices employed to generate such knowledge than to "a body of static knowledge" as he implies. New knowledge can constantly be generated by traditional means and practices, much in the same way that new knowledge or findings can be generated by Western "science". Both are conceptual approaches, rather than static bodies.
You might feel that way, but in public discourse traditional knowledge = static knowledge. You have to be aware of your audience when trying to engage new or not widely known ideas
I get what he's saying. Most of the global south implies the existence of "local wisdom" that is often perceived celebratory, where culture = traditional dances, rituals, and artifacts. While local philosophies can be included within the discourse, I think what Tim was implying was that the institutionalization of the meaning of "culture" has instead render it serving the neoliberal "sustainable development" rhetorics and narratives. In countries, such as mine, Indonesia, the preservation of "local wisdom" as something that is "static" and "passed-on by predecessors," as Tim said, is formalized in education and policy practices as a way of objectification; to control the development of local knowledges as something that is dynamic.
the method of inquiry learning proved to be successfully taught by Prof Tim in his book; Anthropology, Archeology, Art and Architecture. Isn't this method first practiced by the 70s Paulo Freire with the term liberating education? I admire both of them.
YES
No, I think Freire is offering a model where the enlightened teacher knows the outcome of inquiry. That is as hylomorphic as it gets.
5:51 - 6:20
7:25 - 8:07
8:35 - 10:25
10:58 - 12:00
An interesting example of his thesis is that before colonisation of Australia there were no devastating bushfires such as we see today. The first nation's people practiced land management through controlled burnoffs. The so called experts are now calling on the Indigenous knowledge .
¿Alguien tiene la transcripción de esta charla? I want this talk transcription, please.
Can someone kindly explain why its right to insist meaning = etymology?
9:00
Might the interests of the elected representatives of the UK, US, Russia etc. be more harmful than relatively tiny major corporations?
More often than not the interests of governments align with major corporations. They are "wealth generators". When all you have is capitalism everything starts to look like a marketplace
Also, what is to be done when there are multinational corporations that can pick and choose which laws to follow depending upon their location. US elected officials seem to being doing nothing to actually exercise controls or regulations over these so-called "tiny major corporations"
Gary Snyder lazily raises an ear from Ring of Bone.