On 8/15/05 12:28 PM, "Klaus Krippendorff" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> chuck,
>
> you had said:
>>> Similarly, while good design involves those concerned with what is to be
>>> realized, a realized design is not a proposal but a concrete fact
>>> (expression) that can be responded to (and usually improved).
>>
>> i had responded:
>> which suggests that you conceptualize a design not as what a designer
>> actually produces but what others make of what designers propose. i found
>> it useful to distinguish between the two because designers can control and
>> be held responsible only for what they create, not for what others make of
>> their ideas.
>
> now you assert:
> I disagree with this abdication of responsibility for the way others use our
> expressions. Most ethicists and scientists now seek a more forward looking
> view of what might be done with what we do. Sustainable design is a good
> example of this extended view of design responsibility.
>
> i would like to know the ground of your disagreement. is it on experiential
> grounds or because you are committed to a particular ethical theory?
It is a commitment to personal ethics (based on experience in the world) not
to any ethical theory or consensus from those one might be serving through
efforts to reach a design that satisfies needs in practical circumstances.
My disagreement is based on what you wrote not how you are now qualifying
it.
>if your
> disagreement amounts to a refusal to make the distinction that i made then
> you wouldn't be able to recognize the opportunities and limitations of
> design.
Please stop being an intellectual bully.
>let me start by
> suggesting that ethical theories work only by consensus.
Obviously I disagree, believing that ethics comes down to personal decisions
that may be shaped by social behavior but are exercised by individuals.
> if everyone agrees
> that the job of the designers is to see their proposals realized exactly as
> intended (see the idea of specifications),
> let's be real and not appeal to a theory that is merely a proposal to be
> considered for adoption -- like a design.
>
No one I know believes that the job of the designer is to see their
proposals realized exactly as originally intended (or proposed). You
obviously didn't understand what I mean't in the following paragraph. Please
read it carefully.
> I view design as an intentionally guided teleological process that
> ultimately ends with whatever is produced in response to the designer's
> expressions. It does not stop when their "proposal" is adapted or produced
> by others. It concludes when the intention motivating and directing the
> design is realized (however that happens). This is critical to the
> universal nature of designing as I understand it. A design expression is
> also an ever changing adaptation of intention to context and vice versa (as
> Jonas noted) until an intention is fulfilled in "the most advanced way yet
> acceptable" (Raymond Lowey's MAYA principle).
I for one have adopted my "proposal" and it is a design (of a theory) that
has become real to me just as your rather dogmatic arguments for social
constructivism seem to be to you. Think about it!
Chuck
|