Message resent due to failure due to wrong setting on my home comp. sorry.

Dear GK, Hari-Hans, Rosan, Ken and others on this thread

I must agree with Hari-Hans that the facts stated in the article are
perhaps correct but the judgement is flawed as stated by Hari-Hans in his
post below. We have just about surfaced from a massive Dot-Com Bust when
most investors "lost their shirts" in believing that the internet would
change forever the rules of business exchange. They were correct in their
interpretation of the facts on the ground but their timing and their
choice
of companies was mostly wrong and then the rest pannicked as is bound to
happen in the speculative investment space of the stock markets of the
world where the rules of exchange are not driven by facts alone but on
sentiments of the market since it is an inherently reflexive activity for
all its players. The flat world metaphor is indedeed correct since we
already have a working example of it on this very list with 1200 "design
emthusiasts" or should I say "Desigh theory enthusiasts" beat both time
and
distance in sharing ideas and thoughts across time zones and across
continents and in the process are building new equations and offering new
competition to traditional means of publishing that is effectively quite
closed and controled by the establishment in most cases.

I have noticed this lack of synchronisation with known facts amongst
disciplines and each of them draw their resources from different sources
when dealing with the same issues. Economists quote their sources which
are
mutualy exclusive while scientists use their own sources and so do
designers and now interestingly many are begining to use the common
sources
due to an openinhg up of the suply chain of information or a flattening up

of the information space itself. The same facts are recycled through so
many sources and the real origins of these ideas are lost to the
disciplines that use them and history cannot catch up since we are indeed
moving too fast in the production of these info nuggets and insights, and
it will get more complex and not less as we go foreward from here.

With warm regards

M P Ranjan
touching base after some long journeys to Bremen, South Africa and now
Shillong in NE India.
from home at NID
7 May 2005 at 11.00 am IST


Kari-Hans Kommonen wrote:

> dear GK,
>
> I am sorry that I am not at all enthusiastic about this writer's
> insight, perception or analysis. It does not inspire to say much (more
> than i already said), because commenting the article's vague points
> meaningfully requires elaborate discussion of the (in my opinion)
> flawed foundation of his thinking, and since he is not here, it would
> not be a dialogue.
>
> However, I would be happy to discuss specific points raised by you,
> based on your personal interpretation of the article; since you are
> here, that could become a meaningful dialogue - which in my opinion is
> what this list is about!
>
> kh
>
> ..
> On 7.5.2005, at 05:34, GK VanPatter wrote:
> > Ken: It is a straight forward question to explore: What is the
> > relationship between the many issues raised in the THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
> > article and the advance of design research, that expertise, those
> > precisions.
>
> >  For gosh sakes folks lets challenge ourselves once in while in spite
> > of our constraints and instead of making excuses. It is going to take
> > some courage to move towards and create a more meaningful model. If
> > that is not what this list is about then I guess I must be in the
> > wrong place.