Dear all,

Dropping in on one of my brief visits. Time for a quick cup of tea and a few
thoughts. I've been following this thread with interest. It touches on one
of my 'philosophical' projects.

Ken,
I much enjoyed reading your post and I'm broadly in agreement with you when
you say:

 > What is clear is that design is a mental process linked to physical
outputs in a world where the mental and the material are increasingly
interdependent.

And like you,

> I am still seeking a good way to articulate the new philosophy that seems to
me to be on the way. The challenge is that a new practice of philosophy for
design must have a space for metaphor and creativity while it is also true
to facts in the sense of epistemological validity. It must be applicable and
flexible, that is, practical, without becoming expedient.

I think we are heading into something new, that w are only just beginning to
articulate.

Let me take you in a possible direction that I have been toying with. First,
a few signposts. My departure point for such a jouney, like yours, starts
with the Greeks but with the strand of thinking most clearly attributed
Heracleitus and a dynamic view of the world, rather than Aristotelian view
of categories. I mention this, not to invoke a debate about contrasts and
oppositions in philosophical thinking, but rather to point towards a
tendency and a way of thinking. I leap (historically) to the last century
and three seminal works: Gibson's *The Ecological Approach to Visual
Perception*; Neisser's *Cognition and Reality* and Witgenstein's
*Philosophical Investigations*.

Second, a proposition. We (individually and socially) are biological beings,
dynamically dependent on our environment, adapting to our environment, and
in turn adapting the environment to ourselves. It is this later, I believe,
that gives us the designerly point of view and potential.

Third, an assertion. Designing is our most advanced form of environmental
adaptation. Calling it 'advanced' is not to suggest that it is superior to
something else or perfect, far from it. But it is to suggest that it is the
practice we have developed for adapting the environment to ourselves.

Fourth, an argument. When seen from a view in which we are dynamically
relating to our environment, designing and language making (in the broadest
sense) are interdependent, if not one and the same thing. Central to
designing/language making is representation--making one thing stand for
something else, making new metaphors. Making one thing stand for something
else is inherently an incomplete and unresolvable process. Thus there is a
profound paradox at the heart of designing, forever caught between the
creation of panaceas and prostheses. A kind of philosophical 'original sin':
having dared to represent, to create, we are forever condemned to witness
and live with our own unfinished imperfect creations. Our creations hover
uncertainly, sometimes appearing as visions of splendid harmony encompassing
everything, sometimes appearing as local problem 'fixes' that ignore the non
local consequences. Designing, at its best and its worst is both these
things.

The most critical philosophical/moral question that flows from this, and
which permiate all aspects of our lives, is where is it appropriate to draw
problem boundaries? Putting this question another way: where do I, as a
designer, draw the limits of what I am designing?

Just a few thoughts to nudge the discussion along.


David

--
Professor David Sless
Director
Communication Research Institute of Australia
** helping people communicate with people **

PO Box 398 Hawker
ACT 2614 Australia

Mobile: 0412 356 795

phone: +61 (0)2 6259 8671
fax:   +61 (0)2 6259 8672
web:   http://www.communication.org.au