very good post. this is precisely what i "intended" in my previous post.
terry you stated it better than i could
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Terence Love
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 11:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Dropping intention (was Re: design)
Jan, Klaus, Chuck and all,
Over time, concepts reach the limits of their usefulness. Times change and
as human understanding becomes more sophisticated and subtle some concepts
remain too broad, loose or inaccurate for the task. This discourse on
'intention' shows it has, like other dated concepts like 'will' and
'knowledge', gone past its use-by date.
The time-tested strategy for addressing this issue is to separately review
what was referred to under 'intention' in all the different situaitons in
which it was applied (individual, psychological, social, biological,
teleological etc) and to replace it by expressing the same ideas in better
suited concepts from those situations.This enables us to move on, and to
develop older ideas into more accurate and more sophisticated and integrated
theory.
Best wishes,
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Coker
Sent: 11/08/2005 9:01 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Design
Klaus,
Following on from what you have said, there are intentions and intentions.
So idea exploration may not be intentions but is definitely part of the
human cycle of intention forming. Sometimes it is wishful thinking,
sometimes wistful thinking, sometimes emotional thinking, sometimes
exploration of possibilities paired with assessment of possible
consequences, and on and on. So saying you want to blow something up doesn't
mean you really want to, but in an environment where there is even a slim
probability that it might happen as a result of someone's action, response
becomes a complex problem and maybe, I will say it again, discussion of
ethics becomes critical.
Jan
From: Klaus Krippendorff [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thu 11/08/2005 1:10 AM
To: Jan Coker; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Design
there is an old german somewhat revolutionary folksong that includes the
phrase "thoughts are free, nobody can take them away from me" and so are
intentions. you are right about the possibility of lying. and in the case
of design, also succeeding without carefully working things out mentally.
intuition works that way. hence, we agree that this is not a path to
understanding design.
if you count verbal reports as actions, then i agree with you that actions
are what one can hold people responsible for, not intentions. for example,
if someone says he wants to blow up the world trade center (and he is
demonstrably not crazy or without means to set this plan in motion), then
one can (must) hold that person accountable for the foreseeable
consequences. so it is for design. a proposal is a statement with
potential consequences
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Jan Coker
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 2:07 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Design
Klaus,
The difference between specifications and intentions may be that specs are
clearly identified but intentions may be identified and they also may be
hidden. Honesty becomes a player here because you can ask someone their
intentions but whether they tell you or not is also a question as much as
whether or not they are consciously aware of their intentions. If an action
is repeated and has certain outcomes which are also repeated then is that
intention. (Mark Twain once said something to the effect of: if a man plans
to carry a cat home by the tail you should warn him but if after having
carried the cat home by the tail once he chooses to do it again, then I say
let him) Intention might be tied to prediction.
Perhaps your are right it isn't the intention that is tied to
respoonsibility it is the action. So if one intends murder responsibility
only comes into play if there is action involved. What do you think, if it
is someone else acts based on your intention where your only action was an
idea do you carry any responsibility?
Regards, Jan
From: Klaus Krippendorff [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wed 10/08/2005 3:00 PM
To: Jan Coker; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Design
jan,
intention is a mentalist concept and heavily tied up with the elusive
concept of consciousness, as your post realizes. i wouldn't want to hang a
definition of design on it (although chuck burnett does). you may know your
own intentions when you have one, but you couldn't possibly know someone
else's intention unless you ask him or her.
terry and rosan, i recall -- please correct me if i am wrong -- like to
replace intentions with specifications, which comes closer to my thinking as
they are specific concerning some artifact, reproducible, readable by
others, and provide a standard against which a result can be measured. i
prefer to say "proposals" that enroll stakeholders (clients, financiers,
engineers, etc.) to engage in actions that realize something that could not
be explained by natural laws.
indeed, designers must be held responsible for their proposals, that is,
people potentially affected by what their proposals bring about, must be
able to get answers to questions concerning these proposals.
i just don't agree that intention and responsibility are pairs or opposites.
they reside in incommensurable empirical domains, in consciousness vs. in
interactive language respectively.
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Jan Coker
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 10:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Design
Fil,
Yes!
So intention. We might say that what makes us human is intention. If humans
are always in a state of intention the question arrises concerning the
relationship between intention and outcome. Human psychology (depending on
which school of course) might argue that there are conscious and unconscious
intentions, and that humans may not always be fully intouch with all their
intentions, and further humans may have individually driven intentions and
collaboratively driven intentions. When we are drifting in uncharted water,
as we now are when we are involved in any really innovative stuff in any
field there may not be much in the way of predictability concerning the full
impact of intended and unintentional outcomes. That is of course one of the
ethical arguments current in genetic research and innovations.
So how convinced are we as designers that we are fully conscious of the
intentions of our work, because we now come to the other half of intention -
responsibility. Who is responsible, who makes what decisions. Who for in
stance was responsible for the Pinto meltdown to site an old example. Is it
an individual, one profession or a unconscious conspiracy of the 'willing to
ignore'. In this day and age perhaps we need to be more interested in the
ethics of what we do and how we do it, for whom, and how it affects social
and ecological environments and individuals; than in the rules and
constraints of the game. If we look to our responsibilities (how ever we
begin to discuss them) we may not be able to have more than a list of
questions we might be well advised to ask ourselves each time we intend to
act. So it may not be a very comfortable discussion.
Regards,
Jan
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design on behalf of Filippo A. Salustri
Sent: Tue 9/08/2005 10:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Design
Jan,
This is interesting. Okay, I can agree to set 'instinct' aside. That
was probably not a good word to use to begin with.
You're saying that a design can exist as a result of something other
than designing? Or that designing too can be unplanned/spontaneous?
I'm not sure which makes the most sense to me; I'll have to think about
that some more.
In any event, however, I would suggest that intent is still there,
whether or not the action was planned. I believe this thread started
with messages about intention being essential in designing. I'd like to
return to that and suggest that though the spring board diver may not
always plan his dive (I've seen these divers often 'rehearse' their
dives on the board - which seems to me a kind of planning, but that's
hairsplitting - I get your drift), the diver still has an intention to dive.
What do you think?
Cheers.
Fil
Jan Coker wrote:
> Fil,
> Let me continue the thought. In the case you described - not planned,
> spontaneous, even instinctive resulting in good designs, whether we call
> the action designing or not the design is an existing fact. I was
> however not referring to instinctive which is a minefield. What exactly
> is instinct in relation to a human being? I don't think we can assume or
> not assume instinct as a participant in the creative work of humans. So
> lets factor that out for the moment. not planned and spontaneous may
> only be a factor of our perception of reality. Our attachment to linear
> time suggests that if something happens very, very quickly; it is
> unplanned. Does a spring board diver plan their dive? When? In training
> do they plan the dive that they actually do in competition or do they
> develop their skill and then when they are in the competition they
> "instinctively and spontaneously act". Does a basketball player plan
> their 3 point shot? When and how. Are we talking about planning in terms
> of decision. We all make decisions all the time in everything we do. We
> are after all not inanimate objects.
> Jan
>
> Jan Coker
> UniSA
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
> related research in Design on behalf of Filippo Salustri
> *Sent:* Wed 3/08/2005 7:15 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Design
>
> Jan,
>
> Let me make sure I understand you. Are you saying there are some
> actions that are not planned, spontaneous, even instinctive that result
> in good designs, and that those actions should then be called
> 'designing' because they result in (good) designs?
>
> Cheers.
> Fil
> [...]
--
Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University Tel: 416/979-5000 x7749
350 Victoria St. Fax: 416/979-5265
Toronto, ON email: [log in to unmask]
M5B 2K3 Canada http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|