Harold and Jerry particularly
On 11/29/05 2:11 PM, "Harold Nelson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I believe that design inquiry expands the list of relevant questions
> even more. For me a candidate list would include: 1) what is true?,
> 2) what would be ideal?, 3) what should/needs to become real?, 4)
> what is desired to be made real?. Answering these questions take
> design inquiry beyond any predefined boundaries drawn by disciplines,
> fields or professional domains. It is what I would describe as a
> holistic form of inquiry‹which is not the same as comprehensive
> inquiry or hierarchical inquiry.
Although I like Churchman's emphasis on "ought" as an important focus of
philosophical inquiry (if I may shade your words a bit,) I am more
interested in a philosphical system that supports the posing of such
questions within a structure whose meaning allows them to be holistically
considered even within real world situatons, disciplines or domains. Too
often the frame of reference for such inquiry is inadequate or too
constrained by the subject on which it is focused or its own history - a
point that Jerry just made.
Chuck
|