Dear Anne Marie
i appreciate DPP and i have referenced to its content (on and off the list).
this may be a good opportunity if you can drive a discussion that you find
valuable. that will be great.
rosan
Anne-Marie Willis wrote:
> Cindy Jackson's superficially 'reasoned' explanation of why DPP's content
> doesn't get discussed displays the kind of dumb literalism that DPP poses
> itself against. Her characterisation of DPP's "narrowness", reveals a lack
> of understanding of the nature of independent publishing and of the
> intellectual politics that drives DPP. On the first point, DPP doesn't have
> to be "broad" - it is not the official organ of a professional organisation
> or the like; it has no institutional base, nor was it set up to serve an
> existing or nascent 'discipline'. This is connected to the second point -
> myself and other regular writers are more interested in what design does
> in/on the world than in appropriating sundry philosophers to elborate
> design narrowly conceived of as process and professional practice. In her
> keen-ness to label DPP's writers as either Heideggerian or postmodern (I
> haven't time to elaborate on the error of the 'or')she fails to see what
> the writers share, more substantially, is a sense of urgency about seeking
> to understand the nature of unsustainability, design's implication in this
> and how thinking and design might be otherwise. My surprise is that a
> large, international group of people, supposedly working at the higher end
> of higher education (i.e. this list) show such little interest in such
> substantial and pressing matters.
> As to the point on the philosophers DPP doesn't give airplay to - firstly,
> this is inaccurate (one example - current issue Carla Cipolla on Martin
> Buber) and secondly, that's not because we're rejecting papers dealing with
> them - if only we had the luxury!
>
> Anne-Marie Willis, Editor, Design Philosophy Papers www.desphilosophy.com
|