come on,
ken,
i have not said that theory IS this or theory IS that.  i have merely
criticized the unreflected use of the concept and word theory in scientific
discourse as assuming a god's eye view, which i prefer not to take when it
comes to writing about other human beings.  i once sent you a book chapter
of mine "on the otherness that theory creates."  so, other scholars know and
appreciate the ethical position that i am taking when it comes to
categorizing people without their permission.  i thought you would know me
by now as well.  i just don't subscribe to the objectivism that you feel
comfortable with.  so we disagree.

unlike how you read what i wrote, the scientific notion of theory is not
what i advocate we use.  i was suggesting that it muddles the waters if we
use the word theory to mean something very different from the standard use
in the natural sciences, merely drawing on the respectability of that word
in scientific discourse.  if we have the need for a concept that does all
the things that chuck wants it to mean, we should be able to develop our own
vocabulary, and spell out the criteria of its use as clear as possible
within the design discourse and go to work with it.

if you consider my effort to "redesign design" as a philosophy of design, i
merely disagree, as i said, knowing that i cannot prevent you from reading
my writing the way you read that of others.  in fact, i am somewhat
flattered being cast in the role of a philosopher, which i would not
classify myself as.  i understand too well why you do that.  this very
reason prevents you from grasping the richness of another version of
reality.  you may remember reading of my concept of second-order
understanding.  i mean it...

cheers

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 Ken Friedman
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 5:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: 3 Quick Thoughts


Dear Klaus, Chuck, Erik, Ranjan, & Co.

Enjoying thread. While I lean towards the position that Chuck and
Erik take on this, I plan to return later with a longer response.
Tonight, I want to file three quick thoughts --

--

1) Klaus's argument seems to take the form of assertions stated as an
"is." That is, Klaus is saying, "theory is this" or "x is y," and so
on. To me this resembles the claim that something is so
"objectively," at least in the sense
that Klaus uses the same words and grammar that I do to describe
things, and in each case he describes them as
though they are a picture of something in the world outside the act
of his speaking.

This muddies the picture, as I see it, since it seems to me that if
Klaus uses the same language that the rest of us do, it is difficult
to say that we take an [ n ] position because of our language while
he takes a [ q ] position.

I understand Chuck's comment that Klaus himself takes a God-like
position of judgement in some of these threads.

--

2) It is not clear to me that theory and theorizing _necessarily_
entail or require the entailments that Klaus attributes to theory and
theorizing.

--

3) Klaus states that I view one statement of his effort to redesign
design as a philosophy of design without his consent. This is so. In
the same paragraph, his discusses the "god's-eye position as
unethical." The structure of the paragraph is such that Klaus seems
to say is that because I take an ontological or "god's eye" position,
it is unethical of me to establish my categories for myself. Now I
suggest that I take an epistemological position as well, but even if
this were not so, I carefully distinguished my position as contrary
to Klaus's position. I carefully stated that we disagree. (See below)
In another note, I explicitly stated that I do not hope to convert
Klaus to my position. Is my attempt to describe Klaus's statement as
distinct from Klaus or Klaus's position therefore unethical?

I cannot see that my description of MY position that something
constitutes a "philosophy of design" for ME is unethical. This could
just as well be a statement that a rock or a Christmas carol is a
philosophy of design. I might be wrong, but I have the right to state
my position. If I were to misrepresent to misrepresent KLAUS'S
position by suggesting inaccurately that Klaus's statement is HIS
"philosophy of design," that might be unethical. But once the
statement leaves the author's hands, others have the right to say
what it means for them without requiring the author to agree.

--

I will return in a few weeks with an attempt to respond to Klaus's
questions. I post this note simply to file my views on three easily
resolved issues concerning the rhetoric and argumentation of the
thread.

Yours,

Ken




Ken Friedman wrote:

"2) Your view of redesigning design may not be a "philosophy of
design." However, the fact that you have written an excellent article
on this topic does not keep others from writing a design of design
that is. We all agree on the importance of "self-reflection,
self-awareness, self-improvement, a mindful use of the design
discourse in the process of designing, collective learning from
individual design practices, or ... professional autonomy." We also
disagree on some issues. So it is."

and

"4) However, I will argue that your "call for self-reflection,
self-awareness, self-improvement, a mindful use of the design
discourse in the process of designing, collective learning from
individual design practices, or for professional autonomy" is a
"philosophy of design" as the editors of Merriam-Webster's and the
Oxford English Dictionary would define a "philosophy of." While you
may not see it that way, I do. Moreover, I'd imagine that this view
fits the pragmatist tradition of John Dewey's vision of philosophy."