Terry and others
On 9/17/05 12:26 PM, "Terence Love" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Its unclear to me though how much this work on language can be adequately
> linked to human internal meaning and to descriptions of how the physiological
> substrates actualise our feelings, emotions, thoughts, understanding and
> actions.
Your indication that language is what we have to work with (earlier in your
post) seems to belie this comment. In my view, language is the means we have
to objectify and construct communications about the feelings, emotions,
thoughts, understanding and actions that we experience. Language is
essential to interpretation, but it is also constrained by objectivity based
in the (phenomenal) situation it expresses.
> The second relates to the activity of designers in which they operate without
> understanding. One suggestion proposed in a recent New Scientist is that
> creativity (and by implication, that aspect of design activity) is what we do
> when we don't know what to do. A fair bit of the literature on design
> describes this way designers operate in situations marked by lack of
> understanding. Watching myself and others suggests that often this also
> involves working with a shortage of 'meaning' as well. I'm not sure that
> language is the universal medium in these situations - unless its definition
> is stretched to mean all and any representation.
I think you are too hooked by definitions (ie. You put to much emphasis on
the referential stance in my theory of design thinking ). Creativity can be
understood as applied metaphor which is a linguistic device based in
relational thought (which of course exploits referential thought). At least
that is how I see it.
Best regards,
Chuck
|