Dear all,
> being = existence, the "what IS," unpolluted by perception.
> note that the greeks had a very different ontology and epistemology than
> descartes had and that we now accept
All of this deserves a mail far longer than I'm prepared to
write or I suspect you or I'd be prepared to read so I'll
endeavor to keep this short.
Focusing, as it does, on solutions Design's trajectory
within Design Research has not been very different. This
has led to a focus upon methods, and out of this
methodologies, as 'solutions' to research problems. What is
needed is a more a rigorous consideration of the
constitution of problems.
A focus on methodologies runs the danger of missing the
philosophical ground of problems, and of lobbing 'bricks'
from the position of methods (or methodologies). Indeed the
subject of this thread 'Ontology (was Design
Methodologies)' all too clearly indicates this trajectory.
The 'common ground' of philosophy should provide a means to
agree, disagree and question the use (and weaknesses) of
methods and methodologies. We should remember that we are
dealing with a doctorate of philosophy - or how we think
about things (and by 'things' there is an implicit
sensitivity to the world and not simply a retreat into
ideas in themselves).
It is the very diversity of design (as a kind of
microcosm of humanity's response to 'fitting' the world to
its needs) that demands such rigour. For instance the
notion that we 'accept' an ontology based on Descartes
should be questioned by anybody who wishes to examine these
issues.
A rigorous examination of Spinoza (who began by accepting
Descartes' advances but worked through the consequences of
a single substance rather than the duality of thought and
extension) Bergson, Deleuze and Delanda offer something
different (as does the consequences of second order
cybernetics). This is because these offer an immanent
rather than transcendent ontology. Anybody dealing with
systems should engage with such work, or be able to
distance themselves from it using clear reasoning.
In this way an understanding of the philosophical
consequences of these (and many other) 'starting' points,
and how this affect the formulation of problems, should
come before working with any 'solution'. Indeed a
sensitivity to the problem and its formulation should be at
the core of a research project at the level of the
research question; and all else follows from this.
Anyway I've run on far longer than I intended, but I hope
this might have contributed to this and other debates.
all the best,
Mark
----------------------------------------
Dr Mark Palmer
Watershed Senior Research Fellow
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: 0117 3444714
"University of the West of England"
This email has been independently scanned for viruses and any virus detected has been removed using McAfee anti-virus software
|