In relation to Rosan's points 1 and 2:
"1 within university and this design research community, philosophical
questions are often given technical answers. more than enough
professors
cannot deal with philosophical questions. to these professors,
philosophical quesitions often appear 'stupid'. and they are very
capable
of making those who rasie the questions feel that way."
I think that people come not only from different frames of reference but also
have different modes of thinking and what Rosan describes above is a product of
different modes. The "making" people feel stupid is a point in contention. For
some the concept of power and its effect has not been considered or if it has
it may not be considered to be negative in its application to others. That of
course will make a real dialog difficult or impossible.
"2 questions on established points of views raised by people who have
little
authority are often taken as a result of ignorance. thus attention is
given
to 'answer' the quesitions rather than to explore the questions in true
philosophical manner.
Belief in one's own rightness is always a block to collaborative exploration of
knowledge.
Jan
Jan Coker
C3-10 Underdale Campus
University of South Australia
+61 8 8302 6919
"There is no way to peace, peace is the way"
Gandhi
-----Original Message-----
From: Rosan Chow [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, 5 December 2003 10:10 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Design - response to Ken and Rosan and general
assembly
Dear people
in light of the discussion, i would like to share/ expose some more things
that i have learned in the past few years. they are my own preception of my
experiences and i wonder if others especially students find resonance:
in my mind, 1 and 2 are major hinderances to the progress of philosophical
inquiry into design.
rosan
--
Rosan Chow
Female Doctoral Student
University of Arts Braunschweig, Germany
|