Dear Fil & list,

I like the spirit of your post.

In ballet when you place your feet in a certain way, it's known as first
position.  Conversations at the philosophical level in design inevitably
lead to a need to describe theoretical first positions and where one stands
with respect to the larger questions and concepts of the day, things such as
whether language really does cut reality at the joints, whether mind is in
nature and the world, how objective we can be, and whether it is possible to
achieve a universal, unambiguous theory uniting all design.  These and their
like all affect the way we conceive and model design thinking.  Since there
is scant agreement about first positions in philosophy, it seems unlikely
that we will agree about such matters readily in design.

Really, isn't this an exciting design problem?  We'd like to be able to leap
to the inescapable conclusion, but there is all this messy work to be done,
and we suspect we will end up as usual with multiple resolutions, each
better emphasizing some aspect of what we thought we were looking for.

A call for materials that foster this conversation seems like a good place
to begin.  That the call in itself sets off the dialogue is all the more
evidence that design research has to go through its philosophical portal in
order to ever reach, or perhaps better, to narrow down our common ground.

Warm regards to all,

Jerry




On 11/29/05 6:22 AM, "Filippo A. Salustri" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Klaus, I have some reservations about your post.  See below.
> 
> Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
>> dear ken,
>> [...]
>> i understand that this is
>> what you have in mind when you go from "design of design" to "metadesign"
>> and to a "philosophy of design" as if they were (almost) the same.  also
>> when you and terry attempt to map various sub fields of design.  yes, it can
>> be done but at the costs of removing yourself from the ground that you are
>> surveying and this is why metaphysics is not physics and physics is not
>> nature.
> 
> I'm not sure about this.  I believe Ken's "map" is a manifestation of
> Ken's (and Terry's) interpretation of what they've seen, read, and done.
>   They are, in a sense, built into their work.  They haven't and indeed
> can't remove themselves from it.  They can try to minimise the natural
> bias they bring to the project, but they can't get rid of it.  And I
> don't think they'd claim to have removed it entirely - though I can't
> speak for them.
> 
> What I think they are doing is distilling a bunch of information down
> into a form that may stimulate interesting and meaningful thoughts and
> activities in others.  Whether a bit of them is left in their work or
> not is, quite frankly, irrelevant to its utility.
> 
>> i hope you realize that the "overview" that you equate with "meta-" is part
>> of the metaphor of "knowing is seeing," which privileges the god's eye view
>> of detached, physically removed, and vastly superior observers.  i have
>> suggested frequently that this observer role (of scientific re-search) is
>> incompatible with design, which to my understanding is an activity that
>> entails involvement with real people, encourages change, employs creativity,
>> and invokes innovation.  your conception of a philosophy of design is, as my
>> dictionary definition says "a different but related discipline that
>> critically examines," and, in jerry diethelm's post, claims to be
>> foundational to design.  i agree with those who suspect such master
>> narratives to be efforts of logical empire building.
>> 
>> instead, i prefer to understand design as an informed social practice -- it
>> can be understood without going outside it, above it, beyond it, and then
>> claiming "objectivity" to what still is nothing more than understanding.
> 
> Okay, design "can be understood" that way.  So, you and Ken come at the
> problem from different perspectives.  Great.  Vive la difference!  We
> are richer for having both perspectives represented.
> 
> Even if design "...is an activity that entails involvement with real
> people, encourages change, employs creativity, and invokes innovation,"
> we need not exclude studying it from perspectives other than the design
> perspective itself.
> 
> I also worry about characterising observers (in the sense of
> researchers/scientists) as "vastly superior".  When an astronomer
> observes a star, does he consider himself "vastly superior" to the star?
>   To me, the question doesn't even make sense.  Scientific 'observers'
> aren't vastly superior to their subjects of study; they're just in a
> different reference frame, a different context, a different situation.
> IMHO, of course.
> 
> Cheers.
> Fil

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Diethelm
Architect - Landscape Architect
Planning & Urban Design Consultant

    Prof. Emeritus of Landscape Architecture
           and Public Service € University of Oregon
    2652 Agate St., Eugene, OR 97403
    €   e-mail: [log in to unmask]
    €   web: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~diethelm

    €   541-686-0585 home/work 541-346-1441 UO
    €   541-206-2947 work/cell