Hi Klaus,
Yes, I do think that some aspects of my thinking have not come through
clearly.
--On Monday, February 7, 2005 2:20 PM -0500 Klaus Krippendorff
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> we also have visual metaphors, by which i do not mean vague innuendos or
> suggestions but perceptions that upon analysis may well be tied to
> familiarity with other artifacts but tell us instantaneously how to use
> something that one may not have seen before.
As in the desktop metaphor. But that metaphor indicates in broad strokes
how to use something. The details, such as how to connect to the web on
that desktop, still have to be learned. Just as the details of the
research, still have to be identified.
>
> i am saying that because you seem to tie metaphor entirely to words, to
> speech. metaphors in language have a longer history of our being aware of
> them, literature, and are somewhat easier to explain.
I would hate to give that impression since I am so immersed in the visual
aspects as well.
>
> yes, we agree substantially. what i do not quite understand is your
> objecting to accept a metaphor as an end product. i am not sure what kind
> of end product you mean. i suppose that whereas i would be quite content
> to replace "design theory" as the account of design processes by a
> detached observer with "a framework for design," which entails some kind
> of spatial orderliness, or given my uneasiness of the static nature of
> "framework," with something like "design approach" (vs. "observer
> approach" or "user approach"), you seem to want to look for something
> without metaphorical origin.
Again I would hate to give that impression. I'll go back to the example of
textual voice. The term itself has led to too many interpretations from
which no clear definition has arisen. As an end product the metaphor has
muddied the waters rather than elucidated meaning. I'd say again, that I
agree with Turner, Lakoff & Johnson, and Petrie & Oshlag that we need
metaphor to communicate the big picture. But as we have both shown in this
thread, that big picture is not the end picture.
> which some would say are "dead" metaphors,
> for something of which we have shed its metaphorical origin by an effort
> to define the concept. i am suggesting that even if we define "object,"
> "theory," or "intention" we can rarely escape etymology or the original
> metaphorical entailments. we can only chose to ignore them (and may be
> surprised when they hound us later, when least expected).
>
> unless i understood you not clearly, i would not recommend being afraid of
> stopping with a suitable metaphors as way to describe what you want to
> conceptualize and discuss with others, for example in being able to
> support what we do when engaging in design. it serves human
> communication often better than rigid definitions
I agree with the need for spatially based understanding that gives a global
view of the idea under discussion. I just don't think that we can end with
the global view. I don't see your posts as ending with the global view
either. I'm also not looking for rigid perspectives that can't adjust as
new evidence brings new insights. But I am looking for a method in which
details exist that make the big picture more useful and perhaps more easily
shared and interpreted.
All the best,
Susan
>
> klaus
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Susan M. Hagan, Ph.D., MDes.
Postdoctoral Fellow
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh PA 15213
v. 412.268.2072
f. 412.268.7989
|