<TITLE: Knowledge and Democracy
ACADEMIC DOMAIN: humanities
DISCIPLINE: philosophy
EVENT TYPE: seminar discussion
FILE ID: USEMD130
NOTES: seminar includes presentation USEMP050

RECORDING DURATION: 74 min 47 sec

RECORDING DATE: 16.3.2005

NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 14

NUMBER OF SPEAKERS: 10

S1: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Finnish; ACADEMIC ROLE: senior staff; GENDER: male; AGE: 31-50

S2: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Finnish; ACADEMIC ROLE: junior staff; GENDER: male; AGE: 31-50

S3: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Hindi; ACADEMIC ROLE: other; GENDER: male; AGE: 31-50

S4: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Kihaya, Swahili; ACADEMIC ROLE: senior staff; GENDER: male; AGE: 51-over

S5: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Finnish; ACADEMIC ROLE: unknown; GENDER: male; AGE: unknown

S6: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Persian/Farsi; ACADEMIC ROLE: senior staff; GENDER: male; AGE: 31-50

S7: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Finnish; ACADEMIC ROLE: research student; GENDER: male; AGE: 24-30

S8: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Finnish; ACADEMIC ROLE: undergraduate; GENDER: male; AGE: unknown

S9: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Finnish; ACADEMIC ROLE: research student; GENDER: female; AGE: 31-50

S10: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Finnish; ACADEMIC ROLE: undergraduate; GENDER: male; AGE: 17-23

SU: unidentified speaker

SS: several simultaneous speakers>


<S1> alright let's begin welcome to this er second meeting of the democracy and knowledge er discussion forum that's organised together with the department of philosophy in this universi- er university and the democracy forum vasudhaiva kutumbakam er first one was given with the first er er mhm er session we had one month ago when we had er thomas wahlgren from the university of helsinki speaking and today we have er er <NAME S3> from from delhi india <NAME S2> will talk about more about <NAME S3> but the idea of these er these er mhm gatherings is to to discuss er and try to gain a deeper understanding of the concept of knowledge and democracy and their interconnections and the format is such that we will have a sort of short presentation first from from somebody today from <NAME S3> and and then we will go to the discussion and it seems like well there are some students there are maybe some students that that were not here i- the last time so it's also possible to get er study points from this by doing a <FOREIGN> luentopäiväkirja </FOREIGN> or something something like that , okay </S1>
<S2> so welcome also from my behalf i'm <NAME S2> er vice vice chair person of this er small organisation called democracy forum vasudhaiva kutumbakam and it's an an idea for (xx) (-ing) in dialogue with people in india and in finland and this vasudhaiva kutumbakam means the whole world is is one family so and and we are sort of working on a comprehensive er concept of of democracy so besides this knowledge and democracy we we have people thinking of of of economy and democracy and and political democracy and cultural democracy and gender democracy and and so on er , this is young young initiative it was funded just a year fou- founded just a year ago but it has been a quite busy already in in the world social forum the (xx) gathering of social movements that er takes place every has taken place every january so it is when it was in bombay a year ago in india there was er quite quite some activities you may may pass around some some of our our documents these can be found in the in the in the web site and if you if you want i can also give away some of these , so <NAME S3> is er working as librarian in the centre for the study of developing societies where some also also some of the people who are part of this VK institute are working er besides that he is member of (for) (xx) research foundation which looks at the a- at these issues of knowledge from various angles mhm and he has come here to attend a seminar that was organised on monday and tuesday on on issues of digital divide and freedom of sharing but maybe that is enough of an introduction we can initiate our discussion </S2>

<PRESENTATION USEMP050 by S3>

<S2> which is make of made of this (perceptionally) (xx) </S2>
<S3> kind of and this er </S3>
<S2> this thing @@ </S2>
<S3> sort of er just er <S2> mhm </S2> , maybe making some suggestions regarding some basic principles which you can start with </S3>
<S2> can i request professor <NAME S4> from tanzania you <S4> [actually] </S4> [er you] are bound to leave in in couple of minutes @so if@ [@you can just@ give your response] </S2>
<S4> [you know i i i been listening] very carefully to what you have said yeah i mean erm that my my you know the the as you talked i mean i was just thinking of that that discussion about knowledge information and wisdom erm that knowledge is still not quite there you know what i mean i mean there is a (line at) the door i mean you act as as you're going to open the door but you only like going to open the door if the you wanted to make the (influence) that he wants to (enter here) you know @@ </S4>
<S3> i mean that </S3>
<S4> otherwise you actually going (xx) the door completely you know @of course i mean@ @@ because i mean you you know you are you are assuming that this might be an enemy you know okay so i mean there is wisdom you know i mean there is a a paradigm you are you are trying when bits of information you know i mean a- acting on quote unquotes knowledge requires that there is another higher level of organisation you know what i mean why open the door why close the door why start s- trembling i mean for instance if er i eat frogs and i find them delicious er or if i eat snakes and i find them delicious if i boil them for you and make them you eat them and then i you you you are also enjoying like me say what how delicious it is then i say by the way after you've eaten and i say but this er was a you know snake soup you start vomiting i mean @@ now where is this science now @i mean@ @@ i mean because i mean you had already actually accepted that it's delicious @@ and now here you are you are vomiting i mean it is something else which is happening now which is neither physical as in here @i mean@ is but it is influenced which is not quite based on , direct experience because i mean you know direct experience is that you actually found it delicious @@ i mean so what the hell is going on here you know and so i i i keep wondering whether our paradigms you know i mean because we have left out (xx) elder wisdom okay er maybe maybe this is where you are going when you were saying you know maybe er i would have wanted to talk about western western and wisdom i mean i'm always very uncomfortable here whe- @@ because i mean er most of the body of knowledge that we find in greek mythology et cetera and and aristotle and i mean actually all this i mean i- i- it is shared with a lot of other people you know i mean in the middle east i mean in egypt in timbuctu i mean so i mean what is wisdom i mean it's just another another game with the er you know the packaging things and er labelling them you know because what is wisdom i mean you know is there i- you know i mean if i mhm say that the first physicist in finland was X is that making it finnish i mean (is it) @@ i mean if i say the first er you know if i'm dealing with philosophy and i start by mentioning the words of wisdom of aristotle and plato (xx) because they recorded them i mean you know is does that mean that i'm western i mean @@ and the things that you were saying may have been been said by some <FOREIGN> (twa) </FOREIGN> in the in the congo forest you know but i- i- instead they isn't didn't get recorded but so what i mean does it it make it any less important than @@ i mean so in a way i mean i think i mean the nationalism that (xx) messed up with our how we understand things for instance does a frog has knowledge , what about , plants , do do plants have knowledge do they have wisdom , i mean of course human beings have (annexed) for themselves you know i mean the idea that they have identity you know @@ i mean yeah they assume to that you know we are the only ones who think and thinking is inferences making inferences you mean er plants which have been modifying themselves according to nature they are not er making inferences , i mean how d- how else do you account for the changes in in the plant world @@ in the basis of learning from their environments and adapting and what is adapting @@ i i i think there there's a lot of things that maybe human beings have yet to learn maybe we might learn a lot from quote unquote these primitives you know who are not thinking the way we do you know because we have er first of all (annexed) before ourselves you know quote unquotes human being then even within human beings we have created all these arbitrary ownership categories like western wisdom @@ erm and then you know and then where we i- you know and and now of course our derrida and foucault and these these colleagues you know i mean then they say now it's a new paradigm you know @@ but i have a feeling sometimes that maybe i am naive you know maybe we need to go back you know maybe we need to learn from these primitives here who thought that animals also think plants also think @@ and that wisdom should be the basis of our discussion how do we , what intermediates wisdom is knowledge too close to information <SU> @@ </SU> @@ i mean there is so many things about you know i mean you you're going to open the door or you're going to close it or you start trembling or you start singing @@ @i mean@ of course there is a man at the door you start singing why @i mean@ or you start trembling why i mean @@ there there's things that are happening there you know okay <SIGH> i think i should stop there <SS> @@ </SS> but of course you can see from what i'm saying democracy <WHISPERING> hierarchy we've created hierarchies </WHISPERING> how can you have democracy with hierarchies of course of course the problem inside even the word itself came from slaves plebs et cetera you know so it's er problematic in itself anyway @i mean@ you know it's there i- there are there are people who are free and there are they participate there are people who aren't free okay but but actually hierarchies when you start saying you know these are humans they think these don't think these are intelligent these are these have are educated these are not educated these this one has read derrida i haven't so i can't manage you know because i didn't read derrida you know @@ er this one has not read foucault so you know we can't we have no common ground @why have we no common ground i mean i mean@ why should i read derrida anyway @i mean@ @@ it's so i all i'm saying is that democracy erm if you define it in terms of full participation value of everyone everything including a plant including an anim- including the frog that you are eating okay <SS> @@ </SS> i mean why i mean your er how you (explained) if i ate you you know (xx) for good but it's okay not eat a plant b- b- b- but why @@ i mean you are in- you have i mean you can rat- if you can rationalise eating a maize cob i- why i mean @@ (xx) same rationality you might use i mean unless there is some kind of democratic way of deciding you know who should eat what to the extent so that we may all be around and be around we who we our our species you mean okay so ah okay you give a bit of the individual of us so that our species will stay okay maybe that's it nice theory maybe even plants have it you know okay maybe even the antelopes have it er er maybe even lions have it have you seen a lion eating another lion <S3> [no] </S3> [in] normal circumstances though i've seen humans you know wiping up other other humans you know rationalising that you know i mean which means maybe lions are a little bit more intelligent actually @@ er you know so all i'm saying i mean you know i mean democracy knowledge wisdom @@ i think wisdom might take us to democracy much faster you know than than than knowledge because knowledge already is er hierarchical @@ just like the kind notion we have of democracy , anyway </S4>
<P:06>
<S5> one question i i'm pretty sure that lions won't don't eat oh er each other but they certainly do kill each other as we humans do </S5>
<S4> yeah yeah [lions] </S4>
<S5> [these] lions they don't eat each other but certainly do kill each other like for example male lions are killing s- the er offsprings that are not from a certain er par- particular male lion's offspring </S5>
<S4> well i i [said that you know] </S4>
<S5> [yeah but yeah yeah] </S5>
<S4> in normal in in certain circumstances they do just like <S5> [yeah yeah] </S5> [we ourselves do] you know i mean when you shoot someone (xx) called a terrorist i <S5> [yeah] </S5> [mean] @@ [@@] </S4>
<S5> [yeah i mean] </S5>
<S4> you name one something and then you shoot right okay , pretty much like er this sort of lions we are talking about <S5> yeah </S5> but otherwise i mean you you don't consider yourself to be primitive like a lion i mean okay (xx) you know you you think the lion is a is less humane @@ but who told you that i mean you know under (harder) circumstances the lion does not eat another lion except under certain circumstances just like you you know you also shoot at other people when , when you've rationalised it maybe a lion also rationalises when it is so he thinks [@@] </S4>
<S5> [yeah i mean] </S5>
<S4> whereas if it he didn't think then it would be at random you know every lion will be eating every other lion or beating it up you know yeah but it doesn't do like that does it @@ so there is a bit of rationality or may- maybe i'm crazy you know i mean we stay in we stay in the forest too much @@ </S4>
<S5> yeah </S5>
<SS> @@ </SS>
<S6> so well there's a thin line between crazy or genius maybe you are the other one </S6>
<S4> i couldn't say that of myself to the other (member) </S4>
<SS> @@ </SS>
<S4> unfortunately i have to leave actually because there is another meeting actually and and i'm supposed to (listen to) that but i really enjoyed <NAME>'s talk and the conference and here you know and he speaks so slowly you know you know i mean er you may not follow you know i mean sometimes you may think i mean what is he like saying @i mean but@ he he speaks like some older people in the village you know when they just go on very quietly you might actually go to sleep if you are not paying attention </S4>
<SS> @@ </SS>
<SU> (i will save it) okay </SU>
<DIALOGUE BETWEEN S2 AND S7 IN FINNISH P:08>
<S4> it was pleasure you know </S4>
<S7> <NAME S4> </S7>
<S4> i hope you find the way to wisdom </S4>
<SS> [@@] </SS>
<S7> [<NAME S4>] a moment moment </S7>
<S4> ah </S4>
<S4 EXITS, S7-S4 CONVERSATION CONTINUES OUTSIDE>
<S1> i was thinking about these er normative f- frameworks and and this sort of a o- o- one thing that sort of struck me above er all could be sort of indicates both both science or postmodernism but if we take science science first sort of er 'cause that's something i i've been thinking a lot about also and have this sort of this sort of ki- very intense love hate relationship to science precisely because of the reasons that you sort of er er took up that that on on one hand science is of course it's one of the most beautiful things in the world and and it it has to do with this this the these things like inference and arguments and and what thomas wahlgren was was explaining er a month ago here in in this er discussion that that there's er something about this this er argument er he was talking about socrates <S3> mhm-hm </S3> and soc- or socrates in english that er er how socrates invented this idea of the forcing po- er non-violent but forcing power of for an argument that there's there's a po- power in in an argument that is is sort of can force people to do something but still non-violent so so that there's something beautiful about about that and that's of course one of the principles or one of the ma- main principles that er science is based on and in that sense in in this idea about truth and and the power of argument and knowing stuff er of course in the the in that sense there is a there's a huge er huge sort of dutiful side too to science and in in in some sense science is a an argument and all that is er is er sort of important tool against against sort of madness and chaos and and violence and all those nasty things but on the other hand it's also quite clear that that sort of er science is is in this er actual sense that you also talked about that that that what what scientists actually do and what science actually does in this world it's it's a it's a very powerful er sort of a tool of destruction and and er er eliminates knowledge faster than it the er it gains knowledge if we we talk about er sort of pro definition of knowledge or or wisdom eliminates <SU-2> [mhm-hm] </SU-2> [wisdom] @@ so faster than it gains wisdom so thi- this creates a sort of hu- a huge er er love hate relationship to science that's sort of er impossible to er sort of er dismiss science but it's impossible also to (use) science so what should we do , what to do in a in a in a situation like this i'm thinking we- to to connect it to to something like democracy and thinking about for instance ah er erm the pa- paul feyerabend's philosophy of science and feyerabend's ideas of of his anarchist philosophy of science because feyerabend has this nice idea that is er that is er er er er fun to take up sometimes when ta- talking with scientists that that science should alway- also be taken under democratic control that it should not be so that scientists can decide what is science or that scientists can decide what is scientific truth why ca- the we don't let let say neo-nazis decide what's is what is the truth or we don't let s- any other religious or political group to decide alone stuff so we shouldn't let leave science alone to decide what is the truth , like it it happens often in the society if we want to build a road or if we want to build build a rocket then we a- go ask the scientist and then the the scientist get to decide what is the truth or if i- if you want to talk about the global climate change or whatever then the scientists get to tell okay is there a global climate change or not the scientists tell it but there's a big sort of science also in the democratic control and <S3> yeah </S3> sort of vote @about the the scientific truth@ and of of course that that's again the again sort of s- er crazy (also) then we lose the power of argument so there we are sort of stuck completely stuck or i am at least completely stuck with this er question about science and and democracy can't can't make up my mind . there's there's these er er there's this sort of metaphor from henry henry miller actually this er standing still like a humming bird like you you know a humming bird can sort of er stand still in the air by doing an enormous amount of work the wings are flapping all the time and so if er there there's a huge huge amount of work and energy going into the so so i have this same relationship to science so if i'm standing still but there's an eno- enormous amount of work going into that er problem </S1>
<P:05>
<S3> can i just er say something my proposal for that not @proposal but my suggestion@ is that we're dealing what is science within quotes what i have been talking about from various sciences which are er research traditions which are there , that means to er detach the kind of authority er and the kind of er er prediction which has been build for s- science er er and er let each sciences then have to sort of engage with society as well as other . other kinds of knowledge . i think , anyway let's not [(xx)] </S3>
<S1> [yeah] in in their own terms not as a big bunch but </S1>
<S3> not with this authority <S1> yeah </S1> they come that okay this is scientific knowledge they engage they have to sort of argue <S1> yeah </S1> and er about their knowledge and er their knowledge as well as their funding and er <S1> yeah yeah </S1> er like in er we can visualise there been biology like , er you have very genetic determinist kind of a current and you have a slightly different humanistic kind of governance and er . maybe you can split maybe er they can survive in different ways and er i mean i don't know </S3>
<S1> yeah yeah </S1>
<S8> er it er it's a bit absurd that in finland we (find us) er <COUGH> some so , scientific enquiries that that will ultimately say that we don't even exist here @@ so that our subjectivity (xx) er so that , neurobiology for example so if we if we if some of the , philosophers of science say that there is no subjectivity (even then) it's absurd that we as tax payers then pay for them the scientists to say that there isn't such a thing that subjectivity or our consciousness , in that way </S8>
<S1> it's not absurd it is true </S1>
<S8> @@ yeah </S8>
<S2> yeah , i mean one underline tendency for this this big dilemma may be might be the this kind of obsession in progress that the modern west at least i think has that the main or one of the big legitimising er things for modern sciences is that the truth bring us further the in this and there's an element of er advance be it linear or spiral but anyhow it will take us somewhere better and and er maybe you could comment from indian indian perception but some (of the) at least in in s- in several aboriginal knowledge systems this kind of , notion of progress n- is not there that that that the main ideas is permanence and then then one lives with with that sense of permanence er , because if we were not so obsessed with with progress we then could place this role of science more more sort of democratically than than what it i- what it's now . but but is indian civilisation also obsessed with progress if you think of the classical </S2>
<P:05>
<S3> i think it's er , progress there's of course other kind of social things not the not the it's the , it's based within a more a . a kind of disposition that sees things as without any (xx) and without any (xx) <S2> mhm </S2> it's that kind of of . disposition that er <P:07> i think er s- the value of science is er associated a lot with progress , in that in that er science (for) progress (then er) or if you put any kind of restrictions on science then we are sort of , er mhm we are part in the possible progress of human kind in some way like er there's this you mean that connection i think is , quite strong . but er . the problem mhm in er this comes as er , in what what is the kind of for a social change that er we are aspiring for , so some sort of progress we seem to be want wanting (maybe) because we sort of want to go from where we are today to somewhere else . i mean i mean i can't say anything more , because er some er some <S9 KNOCKS ON DOOR AND ENTERS> consider some parents to be progressive you know [i mean] </S3>
<S9> [can i] fit </S9>
<SU> of course </SU>
<S3> it's not entirely meaningless <S2> mhm-hm </S2> i'm saying this is progressive thing that's happening in finland or india or </S3>
<S2> <COUGH> i mean we're just playing with the idea that what if what if i and others they love this idea of progress @@ @for for to@ they they wouldn't beat beat us to </S2>
<S1> is it possible to have the is it possible to have science without the idea of progress </S1>
<S2> i think it kind of becomes irrelevant <S1> [@@] </S1> [without] science you can (grow your potatoes) or you can @believe in science@ but they b- they will not have this kind of hierarchy that so maybe there's this idea of progress er it is sort of er undemocratic @that they@ will sort of emphasise the specialisation and the hierarchy as a specialisation </S2>
<S7> er i've been thinking of because there's there's this idea of accumulation of knowledge in science , but i'm not sure if it's like the only way to think about science as as it is er i've been thinking it as maybe as kind of a alteration in the fi- in the field of of knowledge kind of we we can we discard some of ou- some of our earlier thoughts and replace them with some other so i'm not sure if it accumulates really or if it's if it's like , erm , just some kind of things that just changes its shape and colour all the time and er if if we accept this kind of idea of a scientific knowledge or any knowledge any knowledge then we nee- don't need the idea of progress , what do you think </S7>
<S3> sorry last thing what you said </S3>
<S7> er if we accept <S3> [mhm] </S3> [this] kind of idea of knowledge we don't need the idea of progress , and we can have science without the idea of progress . or </S7>
<S1> yeah problem then then maybe maybe is that sort of a if you say like that then we lose the normative framework that that er <NAME S3> was talking about and we could go to any er direction , we don't know if the the bill if we we don't if we sort of er say that er , when discarding all knowledge and and getting new it's it's not sort of progress but it's just change in some sense , then we lose any any sort of sense of direction i'm not n- i'm not i'm sort of er just making this argument yeah yeah er then we lose the sense of direction and then we could actually be moving to any direction backwards forwards to any direction <S7> yeah i know </S7> and then er that's that's post-modernism then then we lose lose all sort of ground </S1>
<S7> yeah we we can still have rules for knowledge what is good knowledge </S7>
<S1> but can st- can those rules change , if they can't then we a normative criterion and then we have a direction and then we accumulation of [knowledge] </S1>
<S7> [what do] , what do you w- what do you need accumulation of knowledge for for that , wh- why what do you need </S7>
<S1> if we have i i no i'm just <S7> [yeah] </S7> [saying] that if you have criteria for good knowledge then we have a measure for when we have more knowledge and and we have less knowledge . or better knowledge and worse knowledge </S1>
<P:06>
<S7> worse okay , [@maybe maybe@] </S7>
<SS> [@@] </SS>
<S6> if you say so </S6>
<SS> @@ </SS>
<S1> yeah i think i (xx) <SS> @@ </SS> , there are several good arguments to </S1>
<S8> but but is it so that that criteria of knowledge have not changed during the hi- course of history so that , a good argument today , wasn't regarded as good in in in the antique , but but so that so that , we we could we also say that our , er criteria of knowledge accumulate . so that we we even get better , better er measurement , to for our knowledge in the course of history or , is that @again@ post-modernism @@ , so that we we can could could can we develop our . measurement equipment , of the good knowledge </S8>
<S9> ah i'm sorry i i came here late and i'm sort of (xx) and don't quite @know what you're talking about@ (i've known that) (xx) suggest that there are various kinds of knowledges and maybe all of those can't sort of n- er need to communicate with each others for instance there are people who think that we can gain er knowledge by meditating or by praying @and@ erm or you can have evidenced based knowle- k- knowledge and so on so it depends mhm , a- at least we can recognise different types of knowledges , and and and then discuss whe- whether these @@ can sort sort of talk about same issues at all </S9>
<S3> mhm-hm </S3>
<S8> er what do we mean by our knowledge sort of what of what what will we measure when we measure our knowledge is that the average of every person living in the world or @@ or something something else the the highest or the most complex theories of science or , that can that can explain ev- everything more than before but that the , bulk of the people don't really understand so that our knowledge is basically the the knowledge of someone , o- only someone @@ in the society so a a specialist scientist only . or is it is it the whole of society that that's the yeah our soci- o- our knowledge is it is it so that , should should it be accessible to all in the society if it's our knowledge in our society </S8>
<S7> we think of a , the global society and kind of think amount of knowledge i think kind of and the average amount of knowledge per its citizen of the world i think the amount of knowledge is decreasing as the gap between between the rich and poor or north and south widens and the the population of the world increases the kind of the amount of knowledge per person is going down if we measure it by that by that way </S7>
<S3> mhm how how do you know the amount of knowledge [@@] </S3>
<S7> [yeah] </S7>
<S1> and what type of knowledge </S1>
<S3> i i i think if we think in terms of er knowledge , i think the basic meaning of knowledge is er is in terms of er at least er the way i think of it is in terms of er an episode of knowled- a moment of knowledge when we come to know something which we did not know earlier , and er so that is one aspect in in in in in the social sense erm mhm . we can u- u- we can understand tradition of knowledge or or er body of knowledge if we try to s- kno- er a body of knowledge it's sort of process er er and which which can grow or which can er vanish and er , <COUGH> , so we can think of a a semi- er what knowledge i have that is the body of knowledge that i have we can also think of , the knowledge that a community has of certain things certain kind of a body of knowledge we can t- also think of a discipline like physics as a kind of a body of knowledge that er and it's a body of knowledge and it's a tradition of research which is there , i find i've i've found it really interesting about this when i have tried to compare er <P:05> phytic physics with dat- this software open s- open source software and take (xx) and er . in certain sense er physics and software are very similar kinds of body mhm body of knowledge in a sense that the experience you'll content in that is very small er more things are the textual content is or the informational content is very high , but in other sense open source programming and (xx) is very similar er a body of knowledge can grow in many ways it can grow by doing research and keep adding ma- more knowledge to it or it can grow by more and more people acquiring that knowledge so in this sense this (xx) and er open source are similar that the- they grow by more and more people acquiring that knowledge , i'm just i'm just trying to , er try trying to sort of find a language for talking about these things s- many that s- the we start talking of this body of knowledge and how it grows and , traditions of knowledge because we do not have a language so we then we'll end up talking about talking in terms of amount of knowledge in which it's very difficult to sort of unless in a very specific context you can say that i know more physics than you or you know more computer science than me , in that specific comparisons you can see amount of knowledge er </S3>
<S7> actually when i was a- when when you asked how how can you measure knowledge then kind of realised something of course yeah you you cannot measure it and one of the reasons you cannot measure it is that when , mhm when you share your knowledge with somebody else then there's m- kind of like the same knowledge is in two two persons' minds or something like that and it's not in the minds actually or it might be in the minds but it's also in their behaviour or in their skills or in their way of life or in their house when they build a house er or something else or and they pass it on and for instance if you look at these chairs maybe what each of these chairs carry some kind of knowledge you can take a chair look at it and build a similar one does it carry knowledge or and er , something like this , so so knowledge is not not so much in in physics textbooks or scientific er journals but very much in practices in people's bodies as skills and in artefacts we create and in cultural practices maybe </S7>
<S3> yeah i think so if all physicists i mean i don't mean it but suppose all physicists died today (then) i think that physics texts will be , not really a body of knowledge but if one (will) has to have people who have that knowledge who will be able to (serve co-) community benefits a single person who can interpret and use that knowledge without that , so if we now in a in a practical sense of this (even) there are lots of traditions of knowledge in the world like people are , ranging from cooking to er agriculture and medicine and forest and er people , with various skills and er these are not some just some small individual er pieces of knowledge which are there these are very er strong traditions of knowledge which have been changing and some new ones are also coming er coming into place er mhm in many times for example in er in india you have a , you have a er in delhi the capital city of india there is one full er er part in this (territory) there's a whole er locality , where er it's a like a semi-legal they live in kind of semi-legal kind of business that is the whole er thing and they mhm mhm they want to trade first and they go and they see what other kind of (xx) and lots of small equipments , so they just see a- it they come back they try and make the machines and it's quite a large business and there are the er entrepreneurs and the er so it's a dynamic kind of knowledge that these people have they do not have scientific training but they look at the stuff and they make s- er certain things and er er the other ones which are available cheap and a lot of people buy it and that's how the whole business is sustained so it's a new form of knowledge it's it's sort of not a strong tradition of knowledge where each some person er learns from the other person and they have also their own trade secrets and so on and so @forth@ @@ and er , and there are many i think . one thing is perhaps in some way we are not able to see like the richness of traditions of knowledge which exists , and , i don't think we'll be able to see it by saying or everybody's knowledge is equal or something like that but to er er something mhm er <P:06> something more is required some . and , maybe they have a important role to play in , for , in themselves and maybe also for others , but this is speculative i don't think but i don't think that we shouldn't , i consider myself as a practitioner of modern knowledge er mhm tradition . but i think , we can try to sort of er . develop our perspective as a (xx) perception so that we can see the more richer play of knowledge which is there in the world and so that will also shape our practice of our research and , so </S3>
<S10> er i er i think differently er i think that er the concept of knowledge is maybe a dead end er which we have just created from our imagination it er it seems so unclear what it is and er as it's er i agree everything is arbitrary but knowledge is something you can't see it's it's so from the @@ world of the imagination er i think the nature of human might be creating these concepts every once in a while which are too difficult for us like this knowledge @whatever@ wha- wha- what is it er i think we all have different ideas about it like clouds on on the sky and when we have er come to some agreement the clouds have disappeared @@ @so@ so maybe we should just give up and be honest er we don't know what technology is and where did it came and so on what do you think about this </S10>
<S3> (no) like suppose er </S3>
<S10> i'm giving up [@@] </S10>
<SS> [@@] </SS>
<S9> what about [the] </S9>
<S3> [no] but [mhm] </S3>
<S9> [mhm-hm] </S9>
<S3> sorry </S3>
<S9> mhm-hm yeah i i think what is specific for mhm for for finns at least is that we often think that knowledge and er literacy somehow @go together@ and knowledge is sort of something that is printed in books and that's why we are some sometimes i think i am myself , to start with a little bit narrow i have to do @a lot of work@ @@ to figure out other kinds of knowledges or ways of knowing also </S9>
<P:06>
<S3> if you are in a relationship with other person and that other person tells you that you are treating her or him in a in an unequal manner . so i think that she she she's or he is saying it on the basis of some knowledge it's not a you cannot that what you think is that and what i think is that you have to sort of arrive at it somehow it's not a just a question of arriving at some agreement but it's a question of really knowing whether i am treating the other person as a unequal or i'm not </S3>
<S10> but do we need this concept of knowledge to that from [pragmatist point] </S10>
<S3> [no no we don't need the] </S3>
<S10> of view </S10>
<S3> yeah no i i mean we don't need the concept of knowledge but whether we either have the concept or not we do have knowledge </S3>
<SS> [@@] </SS>
<S2> [but i think i think it is] because some things are sort of universal one is that we we have trouble with the idea of where do we come from so all communities create this myth of origin and and this western myth of origin of the (xx) is that very much knowledge is this progressive thinking that there's the biological evolution from somewhere and then the cultural evolution from you know being a bushman and then becoming a urban IT @@ community and and then there are very different myths of origin that they have but i mean that (xx) same way we we are aware of our knowledge that we we have to know things to deal with the nature and we have to know things to deal with each other so then er so we become wonder what is it what is this thing @that@ that that makes us to know er certain (things) mhm and that that sort of sense of knowledge is is inevitable and then of course how much theorising how much (will it weigh) then and (that would be) a choice , and i think again from the discussions with having with with some some friends in india there was some just very brief e-mail exchange about textualisation er because i first thought what is now this that @@ that that but er what is the issue of textualisation but then of course in case of india where half of the people do not read text @it's a@ it's a er it's very very different thing and then i sort of started to see it as being that er that that i'm i'm very addicted to text but and then i began playing with this idea what if i gave up text if i didn't read and write for for some time or rest of my life from how it would change my my my my being and also my my knowing would would i would i know would i then learn something which i haven't not otherwise learned , and so this leads to your (you said this) i think that i mean i'm seeing lot of these possessions so that (honest) spro- procession of progress and i think @@ and but i think it is more of an addiction addiction to text and also addis- addiction sort of with pictures which also , pictures are quite (recent thing) so what if there were no painted or drawn images how how would the life be different how would be wha- what what we wouldn't know what how the (xx) things look like we have the microscopic pics- pictures and then the telescopic pictures which we wouldn't otherwise have but how would life be if </S2>
<SU> <COUGH> </SU>
<P:08>
<S3> i i would rather mhm . create a discipline with text rather than a set discipline <S2> [oh] </S2> [rather] than give it that <SS> @@ </SS> altogether <S2> yeah </S2> i think . i mean </S3>
<S2> mhm </S2>
<S7> i think i read the yeah [excuse me read] </S7>
<S6> [excuse me i'm sorry] thank you very much it was very good a speech you made , thank you </S6>
<S6 EXITS>
<S7> i think i read erm not perhaps here heard but read the the , the first time we i think that means westerners first time we saw the image imi- image of the earth from the space er our view of the world or ourselves changed to that tells something about the role of images or kind of the effect of images maybe and how it how it changed the way we think , also maps hasn't been used al- during the whole history of of humans and er concept of map map changes a lot er lot the way we see ourselves , this is finland we are here and this is india you are there kind of thing </S7>
<S3> so he doesn't like the change </S3>
<SS> @@ </SS>
<S7> i think earth is very beautiful from s- from the space but i haven't seen it i've seen a picture only </S7>
<S1> heidegger of course said that the earth was destroyed when the first picture became avai- available from <S7> [yeah] </S7> [the space] yeah . i think it connects directly to this it is there it thi- this is pretty much what he what's what what he meant , what he meant with that that mea- means a sort of destruction of a certain type of knowledge again to see earth from the space , and to give a certain way of living also because i mean that also also go together quite closely sort of knowledge and and a way of living </S1>
<S7> but then we had a new way of living also [after that] </S7>
<S3> [yeah] yeah and if you are post-modernist it doesn't matter we can [i-] </S3>
<S7> [but] heidegger isn't <S3> [no well] </S3> [for her] for him it's it's the that's a bad thing that we [er er] <S3> [er well] yeah yeah </S3> why </S7>
<S3> yeah that's a good question </S3>
<S9> i don't know what hei- heidegger thinks about that but i think i think the problem is that if you can look at earth from the sort of from the space @@ i know it er it's not very human actually so i- i- i- if for instance i want to study something and keep my er point of view more more sort of at the level of my eyes and my body but i can understand from here but @@ to have a satellite and sh- sh- all beautiful technology erm i i'm totally afraid that it might they might mhm become sort of miscon- misunderstanding or misconceptions at ce- at certain point though i'm er i'm part of all this mhm picture of images and and that we can take dif- different sort of places er than we actually can with the other (xx) all this [(xx)] </S9>
<S1> [but] we can go to space we can [take that place] </S1>
<S9> [well @@] i don't think [they] </S9>
<S7> [you] mean you can </S7>
<S9> @@ </S9>
<S1> oh no no not i </S1>
<S10> er <COUGH> i think er the most characteristic er feature is our imagination in our human activity er and i wonder where does that concept of knowle- mhm knowledge come from but i think er could it be linked to imagination er mhm but is it something that's just taught to us to think that when we have imagination we will need to have knowledge too the er , term that is empty after all well @@ i might be too pessimistic @@ </S10>
<S3> i think imagination is an essential part of knowledge . i mean (think about) , knowledge and so on </S3>
<S7> without imagination you wouldn't have analogies for instance you would only have like you would have a theory </S7>
<S10> yes but do we actually have only imagination er knowledge is something er new name for the same thing </S10>
<S3> mhm </S3>
<S9> mhm </S9>
<S1> yeah i think we cou- you could put it that way but that's more like a terminological question than </S1>
<S10> well i i think it's more beyond that </S10>
<S1> wha- er in what way </S1>
<S10> well er er it it would be @@ long long @@ er l- lesson and i would clear my thinking but er put it simple erm our natural language er , mhm defines our reality the er the constructivist way it is very popular these days , and other way around and so er , we see the reality with a and and depicted with our language and er the reality speaks to us through it , er so it's not about only words but more it's it's the reality , the everything @@ <S1> mhm </S1> [the words] </S10>
<S1> [mhm] but can can that be turned around then against your argument by saying that it's not possible to have an empty concept it's impossible to have an <S10> [er] </S10> [empty] concept </S1>
<S10> er well i think i was just saying at the first place er maybe we have too many words er , the reality isn't that er , that complicated maybe maybe we just create it more complicated and @@ only imagination is enough @@ no need for knowledge </S10>
<S8> so so is that so that knowledge makes the distinction (within) imagination wh- which which is real and which is just fantasy </S8>
<S10> do we think [er] </S10>
<S8> [sure] but d- do you think that knowledge makes this di- <S10> [yes] </S10> [this] distinction </S8>
<S10> yes do do [we have some] </S10>
<S9> [i don't think] so @@ </S9>
<SS> [@@] </SS>
<S10> [nor- nor-] normative er er value-loaded thinking knowledge is better imagination , i think just to (xx) </S10>
<S9> erm i guess you have been talking about power also related with <SU> (xx) </SU> kno- knowledge okay erm </S9>
<S1> so </S1>
<SS> @@ </SS>
<S9> w- w- well i thi- i think if if we talk about knowledge mhm power in various ways is also linked with this thinking and er , for instance mhm if we make maps we make certain kinds of maps depending maybe some power po- er er er de- depend- depending on certain power positions we might , felt and we can change the scale and so on and how we er how we sort of describe what is real can be @@ er mhm er mhm mhm can be done in many ways and we might choose that kind of way that somehow suits to our world view of purposes or and so on so i i i think power and knowledge are , er are are are not often separated from each other er mhm mhm , i'm er in in that sense i i i think knowledge is not value-free the values come come in and and i i i don't know if i followed your <SU-10> [mhm-hm] </SU-10> [idea] clearly i i wonder if you meant something like having for instance er modern science as a religion in place of religion or believing in myths and letting it explain the world or (xx) </S9>
<S10> yes i think , because in science we love this knowledge term especially </S10>
<S3> sorry in science </S3>
<S10> er i i just mean that er , if if if we think rather term of knowledges mostly used you find science to be guilty for that @@ , so the same thing @@ you said er , yes i agree </S10>
<P:16>
<S1> there are so many relativists here i'll soon have to start s- defending science </S1>
<SS> @@ </SS>
<S2> i observed the one of the sessions of which <NAME S3> had organised in delhi of this knowledge and democracy in november and in end of october and there the discussion was hot @about@ @@ about the role of science in in history and science actually got religious (they) needed this , science as religion and there the r- the ang- starting angle to the discussion was this i- question about certainty certitude which <NAME S3> introduced </S2>
<S1> so the good thing about science is that s- it doesn't have to have certitude unlike religion i think </S1>
<S2> and i think there were different views to er to summarise our discussion (we have to) @summarise@ <S1> [@@] </S1> [where where] did you end end in delhi in in your view </S2>
<S3> we went @nowhere@ [@@] </S3>
<S2> [nowhere] </S2>
<S3> mhm i don't i don't think i can summarise you know </S3>
<S1> [mhm] </S1>
<S2> [mhm] </S2>
<S9> erm i i wou- i would like to ask you about the concept of concept of indigenous knowledge and how to er how to verify or compare it with or does it need that sort of varifi- verification for instance (in) to er scientific knowledge or who can own er basically it's a di- discussion who can own @@ ca- can a knowledge be owned and who can define that this is my knowledge and even if you know something about it's it's not @@ you don't have the rights to it in a way </S9>
<S3> yeah i don't know i don't have any answers for that (about this) concept of . knowledge , but i don't think er the first part of what you are saying that indigenous knowledge and , and scientific er knowledge , but i have nothing against the thought so it does verify and in mhm modern scientific terms i mean i'm not i try to think of all knowledge as basically the same meaning in at a fundamental level they are the same and then they are shaped er differently and the difference on our capacity our tradition and our (xx) . and i don't think knowledge can be so easily accessed <S9> mhm-hm </S9> one needs to sort of work hard to sort of getting knowledge and , so we need to work hard for science and in this other kind of knowledge and we need to work hard sort of to (xx) , and i don't know that interesting your question that you asked but this is [my attitude] </S3>
<S9> [mhm-hm] </S9>
<P:06>
<S7> i wonder what is indigenous knowledge i mean erm , it seem tha- er it seems to be something like there's there's kind of dualism of scientific an in- indigenous knowledge or something like that <S9> mhm </S9> it's based on this distinction and er whatever isn't scientific knowledge is i- indigenous knowledge or erm , because i feel there's some kind o- this this kind of distinction in the </S7>
<S9> i i i think it's it's problematic because what uh i'm interested in myself is er di- different sort of understandings of social work and mhm in social work journals written in english they talk about mhm indigenous social work and then sort of main stream western social work and indigenous social work and mhm western social work are considered different but the problem is that er er though the mhm discussion tries to be sort of er bringing various kinds of knowledges together anyhow er the indigenous what is talked as in indigenous social work as is depicted as the other of the sort of real western social work and er this thing there there are very similar elements and western social work in there is not any solid , thing @@ so i don't mhm i i don't really know er , too well what is indigenous but i s- i can see that in this context how it's discussed and find it mhm find it troubling </S9>
<S3> mhm mhm </S3>
<S2> the reason why why i feel this indigenous knowledge or cultures are are important also like how (you (xx) it) they fascinate us somehow is the is the sort of a violence and and and domination that some of the indigenous cultures they they maybe it's the @definition of indigenous@ cultures they then they they choose to withdraw and and sort of get out of the way and and they believe and the- then they are not they have not decimated other cultures because if they had then they would not be @@ indigenous they would <S1> [@@] </S1> [be the the hegemonic ones] [so] </S2>
<S1> [that's] nice definition </S1>
<S2> so since since we are now part of this hegemony culture which which characteristic is the decimation of other cultures and then , for those who are troubled with this thing @and several of us here are@ then then (xx) indigenous cultures then at least gives an perspective at how cultures which are not mhm mhm driving for hegemony and decimation of the other er are , but i think it's mhm mhm to get an understanding or get get any kind of mhm what <NAME S3> said was this dialogue mhm that through dialogue there can be , er mhm er can some kind of er (work) and that dialogue then then is there in in world of knowledge (education) or whatever so when we are and er writing for western journals then that's <S9> [mhm] </S9> [not] parts of the dialogue because @they@ they indigenous people do not , never be reading the western journals so , but (also you) get (in the end) for for this kind of hegemon- @@ i mean somebody from hegemonic culture this and decimating culture to be able to have have a democratic dialogue with the members of of cultures that are being decimated with @@ [with] </S2>
<S7> [but] </S7>
<S2> there's fundamental fundamental problems which have have been dealt in philosophies mhm also </S2>
<S7> but <S1> uh-huh </S1> does a a member of a of a indigenous community in africa what what what does why would he or she want to have a convers- er kind of a dialogue with a social worker in finland or the vice versa why why would a , kind of why why is there a need for any kind of democratic or a- anything er dialogue do will they will they ever meet each other for instance erm , er in a in a in an kind of western journal that is never read by the indigenous people why you know , why does it matter if the if the , okay i know why why why kind of conceptions kind of other the er o- these otherness things are bad but but still erm , if it's a journal of western social workers , erm there cannot be any other point of view that the point of view of western social work </S7>
<S9> @@ i think the editors of these journals would like to challenge that <SS> [@@] </SS> [@(xx)@] because [erm] </S9>
<S7> [i] i mean <S9> [yeah] </S9> [i- i-] is it is it in even in theoretic theory possible to have a different view than a ca- can you take a indigenous view on social work and then </S7>
<S9> mhm i i would be actually interested to , <SIGH> to to m- more mhm i'm i i i think it it's about a local understandings but they are not not so solid so for instance what we consider now here in finland as finnish social work er it it is collected from from from different sources and also there are all kinds of mhm sort of efforts that have have their even normal short histories to to try different community work er method methods for instance and i think the interest is largely because it's believed that er we can all really learn something @@ er uh er er tho- though the- there is difference there are also to some extent similar problems we are all humans and also er for instance we in finland we start to have more more and more people from , from from er el- elsewhere n- [no-] </S9>
<S7> [also] from indigenous er communities </S7>
<S9> yes well it's also possible and u- er at at least it seems within that sense that er erm western er mhm let's say social work professionals er these days travel all around the wo- world and er trying to educate themsel- their social welfare mhm thinking and social work methods and so on and there is actually quite a high demand for this and to , er e- mhm even to be a bit more sensitive than that to to @understand@ there can be some other thinking about this thing also than the kind of education i have had er wou- would be useful to know something at least er about other other ways to look at the issue other strategies er for instance in in places like mhm for instance new zeal- new zealand what the social workers who have had erm social work education based on western sources and then they work in their own communities they have found out that much of the stuff they have learned is not useful er for instance sort of er professional distance-keeping or something like that is something they totally have to do away er the people they work with have have to know whose whose parents' child you are and from which village and so on so it's a very simple ex- example but also erm like how problems are addressed who is supposed to negotiate and and solve them it doesn't m- mhm mean that if there has to be a social worker involved @probably if there is@ one like that working in the area er then they should should understand something about how , er how it goes mhm </S9>
<S7> i was just kind of wa- trying to understand , this erm . this idea of dialogue between cultures like , do do they want to have dialogue @with us@ kind of if if it's a i've okay i'm not maybe i'm misunderstood the concept of indigenous community or knowledge , erm i i was thinking it's it's quite something that is quite erm , nothing not not having very much erm , to do with a so-called western or non-indigenous cultures erm yeah mhm </S7>
<S2> but i me- i heard a case about one one mexican i- indigenous community whose characteristic was in this that they don't want @to to enter in the@ into dialogue that they are remarkably rude @and of@ <S1> [@@] </S1> [and hostile] to any any [outsiders and it's like] </S2>
<S7> [yeah that's what i] mean </S7>
<S2> and they're one of the maybe @@ with a more more intact then and than others </S2>
<S7> it's also maybe a problem that the concept of democracy is of western <S2> mhm </S2> <S9> mhm </S9> <S2> yeah </S2> it might be a good idea but s- still it's western , i'm not sure </S7>
<S9> er if it if it's not indigenous it's something , sort of a local or inherent to to a particular culture there are anyhow things that though they are not though they didn't exist there mhm let's say 500 years ago where does it @@ when something becomes in a way indigenous or local where where is the sort of border line , ev- even a- for us democracy er is a new thing and we we think it's sort of essential to to finland and so on and , have er found our ways to to work inside it </S9>
<P:10>
<S2> <FOREIGN> onko se siinä </FOREIGN> </S2>
<S1> yeah i guess we are running late </S1>
<S2> <NAME S3> do you want to say final [word words of] </S2>
<S3> [not that (xx)] </S3>
<S1> there's a [wisdom] </S1>
<S2> [knowledge] <S1> [@@] </S1> [wisdom knowledge] information or or data [@@] </S2>
<SS> [@@] </SS>
<S3> no actually it was a very very nice discussion i really enjoyed it i really liked it </S3>
<S1> thank you for for coming and thanks for the </S1>
<S3> mhm thank you </S3>
<S1> presentation and thank you for coming and we continue in a month's time again it was the 13th 13th of april er if i remember [correct] </S1>
<S2> [yeah] four weeks' time <S1> [yeah] </S1> [according to] the programme </S2>
<S1> and we have er presentations from </S1>
<S2> <NAME> </S2>
<S1> yes </S1>
<S2> who is is sort of this erm er how does he call himself </S2>
<S1> i don't know @@ </S1>
<S2> no he wrote to this well i think it was in <FOREIGN> niin & näin kolumni </FOREIGN> er was it not published earlier from the [gustavo gustavo estevez] </S2>
<S1> [yeah it was gustavo] </S1>
<S7> [he was called him himself] </S7>
<S2> he said dis- er sort of de-professionalised (intellect) or what </S2>
<S1> yes yes something like that yeah , renegade </S1>
<S7> he also calls himself eco-philosopher </S7>
<S2> that i don't know @(xx)@ maybe he calls himself </S2>
<S1> well in a in four weeks' time we can ask [him what he is] </S1>
<S2> [erm what you mean] </S2>
<S1> @@ </S1>
<SU> yes yeah </SU>
<S2> okay thank you </S2>
<S1> thank you </S1>
