Dear Kari-Hans,
Thanks for your reply! I hope you won't mind if I respond
some.
You're interested in
"... how to describe designs that have emerged without an
intentional designer ..."
and say that
"... it is useful in many situations to think about
intentionally designed designs and emergent or
unintentionally produced designs in the same way, because
they all have their effects and consequences in the world,
regardless of where they came from."
I would say designs don't emerge, intentionally or
unintentionally, and designs can be described in any way
someone (an agent) finds useful. Anything can be place in a
design role by an any agent--a thing that can do designing or
not. So, in my way of thinking about what a design
is--anything placed by an agent in the design relation--is as
inclusive as they come. Agents, things like us, can put
anything they like in this role, whenever they like, for
whatever reason they like. There's no stopping this, not with
good reason, at least.
But may be I'm confused about what you're interested in?
Things (and stuff) don't have "effects and consequences in the
world" because they are designs. They have effects and
consequences because they are things or stuff. Things don't
have to be designs before they can have effects in the world.
So, are you trying to divide the world (or Universe) of things
and stuff in to Natural things and stuff, and things and stuff
that arise from agent actions? And you want to use the word
design to distinguish the two kinds? If so, why is this
interesting for a better understanding of designing?
Accepting that I may be confuse about your aims here, I'd
still take exception to the way you talk of evolution.
Evolution does not produce designs. It gives rise to things
that can be considered as designs--put in the design relation
by an agent. Remember, no agent, no designs. And evolution
is no agent!
Evolution doesn't produce cats, human beings, cells, eyes,
viruses. It's a Natural process (a complicated one) that
gives rise to things we (agents!) call cats, human beings,
cells, eyes, viruses, etc.
So, when you ask "... how can/should we define that design?"
are you asking how are the forms and constructions of these
things--cats, human beings, etc--to be described? Or are you
asking how they are designed? Evolution, in my view, does not
do any designing. And, in my way of thinking, since we can
place anything we like in a design relation (to us) we also
get to chose how we describe the thing when considered as a
design, rather than as a particular thing.
Being a design is not a property or quality of something.
It's a role that something can be given by an agent. A role
the something can be given no matter how it came to be (and
do, of course).
As I say, my sense is that I'm not understanding well what
you're trying to do and why.
Best regards,
Tim
====================================================
On Apr 4, 2013, at 23:19 , Kommonen Kari-Hans wrote:
> Dear Tim, Keith, Jesper, Ken,
>
> thanks a lot for your responses!
>
> Ken, thanks for the definitions. I have studied them as well, and I think they are very helpful, but as they reflect (as they should) the way language is generally used, I feel that some tweaking might be useful, and I am trying to ask from the list if some people have developed or come across such tweaks, or on the other hand elaborations that might better cater to the needs I am thinking about. The closest one of these definitions (for this current interest) is in my opinion:
>
>> 5 a: an underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding <the general ∼ of the epic>
>
>
>
> Jesper, you said:
>> Following that, I would consider the designed objects as change agents, being manifestations of the change the designer intends to implement, conveyed through the meaning that is stored in the product.
>
> This is interesting, I need to spend some time thinking about this, thanks! But maybe going a bit in a different direction from mine.
>
> Keith,
> Thanks, and as Tim said, very elegant! You set off in the kind of generalization direction I am looking for. It is very concise and compact indeed. However, I am not sure I understand your explanation completely, I need to reflect and try to map it against what I am thinking about with a bit more time. But I do have one problem with the "doing" part, it is the actor....
>
> And Tim, thanks for building on Keith's response;
> You complicate his generalization by incorporating the idea of designs being built on earlier designs, which is nice.
> And in your second post you highlight the actor and the expert designer. I understand your reasons for emphasizing these, but I am looking for something else.
>
>
> I am interested specifically in how to describe designs that have emerged without an intentional designer, and in considering designs that may be less clearly definable and with fuzzy boundaries. I want to be inclusive rather than restrictive. I think that it is useful in many situations to think about intentionally designed designs and emergent or unintentionally produced designs in the same way, because they all have their effects and consequences in the world, regardless of where they came from. This expands the scope for studying designs tremendously, and we are at this point quite ill equipped for that, due to the requirement of the involvement of the actor and the intention. This greater scope for design is also something that Papanek, Krippendorff and Cross have noted, although I am possibly taking it much further, and I assume many will think I go beyond useful limits.
>
> But, for example, species. How should we describe what the design of a cat is - what should our description (of the design of the cat, not of the cat) contain?
> Evolution produces design, that is something that Darwin's supporters and opponents both agreed - hence the argument from design and the idea of fighting evolutionism with the theory of intelligent design. But when evolution produces e.g. a cat, a human being, a cell, an eye, a virus - how can/should we define that design?
>
> Or, does marriage have a design? What is the design of marriage, what should we think that the design of marriage contains? Or does everyone on the list think that marriage has no design, e.g. as we can not point out the actor who designed it, or how it actually emerged and where?
>
>
> I will try to engage in something of this sort and promise to let you know when I have something smart to say about it, but I just wanted to find out if there are any soulmates out there who are considering these same kind of issues and who may have published something I have not yet found, whether I have overlooked some well known references, and whether there is any general interest in this direction :)
>
> cheers, Kari-Hans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|