terry
i understand what you are saying: On a related tack, Klaus you say 'even if
we define "object," "theory," or "intention" we can rarely escape etymology
or the original metaphorical entailments.  we can only chose to ignore them'
As I understand it, this is precisely why technical definitions are used -
to get away from the problems of when  concepts are defined in everyday
terms and etymologically evolving. A parallel example is the use of Latin by
doctors.

yes, this is an effort to exclude human experiences from knowing and
theorizing.  it works well when
(1) the object under consideration is somewhat distant from human
involvement, e.g., the astronomy of the universe and the physics of
mechanisms, which can be talked about without emotions, attitudes
(2) when one is interested in representations more so than with changing the
world in which one lives.
(3) when institutional controls can be invoked for the correct use of a
vocabulary,  e.g., text books, granting degrees that certify the competence
in using the technical vocabulary
(4) when one is not concerned with other peoples' practices and
understanding (avoiding second-order understanding altogether)

i contend that this is a very impoverished language and not particularly
suited to talk about what designers are doing.

in my experiences, attempting to exorcize the observer/designers and giving
up the history of meanings comes back to you, for example in terms of the
postmodern review of modernist theorizing, of making people aware about the
male dominant positivism, or the rising of critical scholarship that affects
design.

klaus

-----Original Message-----
From: Dr. Terence Love [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 6:28 PM
To: Klaus Krippendorff; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Design & Theory


Klaus and Susan,
There seems to be an element of 'wanting to have the cake and to eat it'.
Seems to me this discussion is going down a simple dimension  - how
deterministically a metaphor relates to what it represents.
On one hand, if the relationship is taken to be fuzzy, then it offers the
opportunitiy to argue that using metaphor offers a loose cueing of
associated thoughts, emotions and feelings. This is useful in arguing a case
for metaphor contributing to a 'magic' approach to creative thought
On the other hand, if the relationship is taken to be tight (as Klaus
implies below - see '...instantaneously tell us how to use...') then a
metaphor becomes closer to theoretical representation - except that the
theoretical representation operates within a context that is meant to be
clear and unambigous.

On a related tack, Klaus you say 'even if we define "object," "theory," or
"intention" we can rarely escape etymology or the original metaphorical
entailments.  we can only chose to ignore them'
As I understand it, this is precisely why technical definitions are used -
to get away from the problems of when  concepts are defined in everyday
terms and etymologically evolving. A parallel example is the use of Latin by
doctors.
Best,
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: Klaus Krippendorff
Sent: 8/02/2005 3:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Design & Theory


susan,
regarding your earlier post,
we also have visual metaphors, by which i do not mean vague innuendos or
suggestions but perceptions that upon analysis may well be tied to
familiarity with other artifacts but tell us instantaneously how to use
something that one may not have seen before.

i am saying that because you seem to tie metaphor entirely to words, to
speech.  metaphors in language have a longer history of our being aware of
them, literature, and are somewhat easier to explain.

yes, we agree substantially.  what i do not quite understand is your
objecting to accept a metaphor as an end product.  i am not sure what kind
of end product you mean.  i suppose that whereas i would be quite content to
replace "design theory" as the account of design processes by a detached
observer with "a framework for design,"  which entails some kind of spatial
orderliness, or given my uneasiness of the static nature of "framework,"
with something like "design approach" (vs. "observer approach" or "user
approach"),  you seem to want to look for something without metaphorical
origin.  which some would say are "dead" metaphors,  for something of which
we have shed its metaphorical origin by an effort to define the concept.  i
am suggesting that even if we define "object," "theory," or "intention" we
can rarely escape etymology or the original metaphorical entailments.  we
can only chose to ignore them (and may be surprised when they hound us
later, when least expected).

unless i understood you not clearly, i would not recommend being afraid of
stopping with a suitable metaphors as way to describe what you want to
conceptualize and discuss with others, for example in being able to support
what we do when engaging in design.  it serves human communication often
better than rigid definitions

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 Susan M. Hagan
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 9:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Design & Theory


Hi Klaus,

One other quick note. I think that we probably share a lot of common
ground. When you talk about the metaphor of process, you break it down into
parts rather than assuming that the metaphor can simply make the case by
itself. When I use the metaphor of framework, I take it down to identifying
parts that I think might be useful for making and for analysis.

I don't know exactly where that leaves us, but I wanted to put it out there.

Best regards,

Susan

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Susan M. Hagan, Ph.D., MDes.
Postdoctoral Fellow
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh PA 15213

v. 412.268.2072
f. 412.268.7989