Dear Rosan,
You may gradually gather from talking with me that I am interested in just
about everything. :) But I often find that some things are more
interesting and promising than others, and that time is needed for their
potential to emerge.
Thank you for the suggestion. I will keep it in mind.
Dick
--On Friday, February 25, 2005 12:23 PM +0100 Rosan Chow
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Dick
>
> I didn't know you are so interested in systems theory, it is great.
>
> One of the goals of the EAD06 "Design System Evolution" is to bring
> various systems theories into design discourse in our community. Your
> interest in systems theory will certainly speed up this process.
>
> Following EAD06, DRS might host another conference in exploring systems
> theory. I think anyone interested in systems theory and design will be
> excited.
>
> Just a suggestion.
>
> regards, rosan
> ead06.hfk-bremen.de
>
> richard buchanan wrote:
>
> Dear Norm,
>
> I agree with your observation that intelligent design is one of the key
> issues for the future of design thinking. Certainly, preliminary work
> that begins to bring into our conversations ideas growing out of
> indigenous understanding of nature will be valuable.
>
> As a further provocation--following on my note in response to Lobomir's
> note on this theme--most discussions of general systems theory are
> clearly based on a materialist view of reality. Though the "entities"
> that writers such as Bertalanffy discuss range widely across "all"
> systems, they are all entities at heart. This is why I suggest that
> considerable sophistication will be needed to distinguish entitative
> systems from noumenal systems. It is a mistake to believe that the two
> are equivalent. Nature as material and nature as noumenal is an
> interesting topic to explore.
>
> The general laws of systems--if such laws exist in anything more than
> literary analogy (note William Scott's excellent discussion of this
> matter)--may have some spiritual associations, but they offer only thin
> connections that pale in the face of thorough going discussions of the
> noumenal. I am thinking, for example, of the dialectical interplay of
> freedom and necessity that one finds in Plato's Republic and Timaeus.
> The Timaeus could be read as a lively account supporting general systems
> theory, except that its meaning must be seen in relation to the Republic
> if one is to have the full account.
>
> [Keith will also like the following note, since he is always interested
> in the Poetics of Design: Early in the Phaedrus, Socrates makes a
> seemingly casual comment on the value of scientific explanations before
> moving on to what is a noumenal account of rhetoric (read: 'design').
> This
> juxtapositioning is much like the balancing of the Timaeus and the
> Republic.]
>
> Sorry for the length of this note--not my usual style, I think. But I
> find your (Norm) suggestion very valuable in opening up the issue of
> intelligent design.
>
> BTW, The William Scott reference is: "Organization Theory: An Overview
> and an Appraisal" in Classics of Organization Theory, 5th ed. Ed by
> Shafritz and Ott.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dick
>
> Richard Buchanan
> Carnegie Mellon University
>
> --On Wednesday, February 23, 2005 10:43 AM +1000 Norm Sheehan
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Luis
>>
>> The design model of creation and the Idea of Intelligent design is
>> central to Indigenous understanding of Natural Systems ... i am
>> completing a paper that presents this theory as a design origin for the
>> universe ... it is in elemental stages at present but will make it
>> available on the list as soon as it is in draft form ... the big G word
>> was only appended to some explanations of this theory in the 1920s &
>> 1930s as a response to contact with missionaries. The many aspects of
>> this theory were and still are presented in visual design form ... some
>> of the traditional works of this kind have been explained to
>> anthropologists as 'books' on philosophy by their painters.
>>
>> Intelligent Design is a key issue for the future...particularly due to
>> the irreducibility of many features of Natural Systems. This brings into
>> to my mind the question ... What are we doing when we design?
>>
>> Some comments on this would be interesting.
>>
>> yamin ya
>>
>> Norm
>>
>>
>>
>> At 11:44 AM 22/02/2005 -0800, =?UNKNOWN?Q?Lu=EDs_In=E1cio?= wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi all<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
>>
>>
>>
>> There has been much controversial over the past century because of a new
>> arisen “science” called Intelligent Design (ID), which is considered an
>> alternative to Evolutionism. And, as it tells Jim Holt on is article in
>> the New York Times,
>> (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/magazine/20WWLN.html?pagewanted=all&p
>> o sition= ), it is beginning to be included in some schools of
>> north-america, using the argument of encouraging the students to explore
>> a different explanations of life, in this case ID.
>>
>> I must say that I agree on most of the Holt article, where he utilizes a
>> good argument of verifying the work of a designer, not by the designer,
>> but through the design. And by this way he concludes that the designer
>> of ID, is not a very good designer. That is, by the presumption that
>> someone designed the existence as we know it (creationism), he did not
>> do a very good job. And Holt shows us some systems that demonstrate
>> that this mighty designer is not very perfect.
>>
>> I know that some tries to escape, especially in ID theory, in using the
>> “G-word, because, as they claim, theirs is not a religiously based
>> theory”. but then, the question becomes “if they defend an intelligent
>> design, who have designed the design? Who is the designer? Who is the
>> intelligent designer?”.
>>
>> In the article the only thing that fails is the lack of a
>> counter-argument to Behe’s Irreducible Complex (IC).
>>
>> This serves as a awakening call for the designers. I think that we,
>> designers, must include ourselves in this discussion. It is not
>> possible, people defending, or attacking ID, without knowing the theory
>> of Design, as well as the Evolution theory.
>>
>> We must understand this fact, as a mean to discover the ontological
>> aspects of Deign, beginning with a big question: “Is there a
>> Metaphysical Design?”
>>
>>
>>
>> best
>>
>> Luís Inácio
>>
>>
>>
>> Luís Inácio
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> Designer de Comunicação | Communication Designer
>> [log in to unmask]
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> Direcção da Desígnio | Direction of Desígnio
>> www.designio.com.sapo.pt
>>
>>
>> Do you Yahoo!?
>> Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
>>
>
|