Chuck and all,
Chuck says: "To me the issue lies in selection and
recognition and selection, both of the metaphor and of those elements
within its scope relevant to a focal situation."
Your comment about selection assumes a usefulness to building/generating
understanding in design situations by connecting selected source aspects or
qualities to target interests (needs, desiresŠ) I don't think Terry's robot
has such "needs" (unless someone gives them to it) and so wouldn't know what
mattered or why expressing it in other terms might prove useful. Is the
relationship between a part of a source pattern and a target a conceptual
model? Of course it is. It's a simple model that has a name: metaphor, and
it seems to be as David says (and research underpins) basic to human
language and thought. My purpose has been to explore how this process is
useful in designing? I suspect we'll get farther if we keep the inquiry
situated and not try to take it to 25,000 feet too quickly (to see if it
will die in thin air).
And you go on to speculate about some sources of the need and the mental
processes that might be at work.
"...metaphors are found intentionally - by searching, however
subconsciously, for references of relevance to some, sometimes poorly
formed, but situated goals."
This assumes a focal situation and a need to both describe and evaluate it.
A rich description of a pregnant design situation is probably not just a
list. A quantitative evaluation (quantity is a quality) may be critical or
central but probably isn't adequate without a fuller qualitative component,
which may turn out to be the driving force. "We want the new design to
represent the firm's commitment to economic and social justice" etc.
"Within that search some process must seek
to match entities of concern in the focal situation to elements within
the source. At this level ( "probably" emotionally driven) the brain
is "probably" considering personal knowledge as well as circumstances
of the situation that have been internalized."
A key need at this launch-point, it seems to me, is to be generative, and
metaphor is a very useful tool for generating possibilities, taking
beginning goal understanding and seeking selected source associations. This
is a divergent process (< = a fan if you will), but still selective, not
"encyclopedic." It probably does depend on one's experience bank, one's
repertoire, and one¹s associational fluency.
And of course the more significant associations and qualities generated, the
harder it is to reorder them, coverage them, integrate them and recompose
them. (>!). Here's the metaphoric model in shorthand: (<->!) Re
complexity: the smallest design problems can be complexly about and require
the reintegration of as many things as you can imagine.
"I suspect that the
selection of a metaphor that is able to "inform" an intention is a
"trained process" perhaps similar to a constructivist network or the
product of one of Terry's complex systems. It relies on accumulated
experience and a kind of "poetic" imagination. These are all stretches
for understanding but that is what is needed here it seems."
If understood, it appears to be a useful and trainable process and
"stretches for understanding" captures the spirit perfectly - and even
better metaphorically.
Best to all,
Jerry
--
Jerry Diethelm
Architect - Landscape Architect
Planning & Urban Design Consultant
Prof. Emeritus of Landscape Architecture
and Community Service € University of Oregon
2652 Agate St., Eugene, OR 97403
€ e-mail: [log in to unmask]
€ web: http://www.uoregon.edu/~diethelm
€ 541-686-0585 home/work 541-346-1441 UO
€ 541-206-2947 work/cell
|