Jan, Klaus, Chuck and all,
Over time, concepts reach the limits of their usefulness. Times change and as human understanding becomes more sophisticated and subtle some concepts remain too broad, loose or inaccurate for the task. This discourse on 'intention' shows it has, like other dated concepts like 'will' and 'knowledge', gone past its use-by date.
The time-tested strategy for addressing this issue is to separately review what was referred to under 'intention' in all the different situaitons in which it was applied (individual, psychological, social, biological, teleological etc) and to replace it by expressing the same ideas in better suited concepts from those situations.This enables us to move on, and to develop older ideas into more accurate and more sophisticated and integrated theory.
Best wishes,
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Coker
Sent: 11/08/2005 9:01 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Design
Klaus,
Following on from what you have said, there are intentions and intentions. So idea exploration may not be intentions but is definitely part of the human cycle of intention forming. Sometimes it is wishful thinking, sometimes wistful thinking, sometimes emotional thinking, sometimes exploration of possibilities paired with assessment of possible consequences, and on and on. So saying you want to blow something up doesn't mean you really want to, but in an environment where there is even a slim probability that it might happen as a result of someone's action, response becomes a complex problem and maybe, I will say it again, discussion of ethics becomes critical.
Jan
From: Klaus Krippendorff [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thu 11/08/2005 1:10 AM
To: Jan Coker; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Design
there is an old german somewhat revolutionary folksong that includes the phrase "thoughts are free, nobody can take them away from me" and so are intentions. you are right about the possibility of lying. and in the case of design, also succeeding without carefully working things out mentally. intuition works that way. hence, we agree that this is not a path to understanding design.
if you count verbal reports as actions, then i agree with you that actions are what one can hold people responsible for, not intentions. for example, if someone says he wants to blow up the world trade center (and he is demonstrably not crazy or without means to set this plan in motion), then one can (must) hold that person accountable for the foreseeable consequences. so it is for design. a proposal is a statement with potential consequences
-----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 Jan Coker
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 2:07 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Design
Klaus,
The difference between specifications and intentions may be that specs are clearly identified but intentions may be identified and they also may be hidden. Honesty becomes a player here because you can ask someone their intentions but whether they tell you or not is also a question as much as whether or not they are consciously aware of their intentions. If an action is repeated and has certain outcomes which are also repeated then is that intention. (Mark Twain once said something to the effect of: if a man plans to carry a cat home by the tail you should warn him but if after having carried the cat home by the tail once he chooses to do it again, then I say let him) Intention might be tied to prediction.
Perhaps your are right it isn't the intention that is tied to respoonsibility it is the action. So if one intends murder responsibility only comes into play if there is action involved. What do you think, if it is someone else acts based on your intention where your only action was an idea do you carry any responsibility?
Regards, Jan
From: Klaus Krippendorff [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wed 10/08/2005 3:00 PM
To: Jan Coker; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Design
jan,
intention is a mentalist concept and heavily tied up with the elusive concept of consciousness, as your post realizes. i wouldn't want to hang a definition of design on it (although chuck burnett does). you may know your own intentions when you have one, but you couldn't possibly know someone else's intention unless you ask him or her.
terry and rosan, i recall -- please correct me if i am wrong -- like to replace intentions with specifications, which comes closer to my thinking as they are specific concerning some artifact, reproducible, readable by others, and provide a standard against which a result can be measured. i prefer to say "proposals" that enroll stakeholders (clients, financiers, engineers, etc.) to engage in actions that realize something that could not be explained by natural laws.
indeed, designers must be held responsible for their proposals, that is, people potentially affected by what their proposals bring about, must be able to get answers to questions concerning these proposals.
i just don't agree that intention and responsibility are pairs or opposites. they reside in incommensurable empirical domains, in consciousness vs. in interactive language respectively.
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 Jan Coker
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 10:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Design
Fil,
Yes!
So intention. We might say that what makes us human is intention. If humans are always in a state of intention the question arrises concerning the relationship between intention and outcome. Human psychology (depending on which school of course) might argue that there are conscious and unconscious intentions, and that humans may not always be fully intouch with all their intentions, and further humans may have individually driven intentions and collaboratively driven intentions. When we are drifting in uncharted water, as we now are when we are involved in any really innovative stuff in any field there may not be much in the way of predictability concerning the full impact of intended and unintentional outcomes. That is of course one of the ethical arguments current in genetic research and innovations.
So how convinced are we as designers that we are fully conscious of the intentions of our work, because we now come to the other half of intention - responsibility. Who is responsible, who makes what decisions. Who for in stance was responsible for the Pinto meltdown to site an old example. Is it an individual, one profession or a unconscious conspiracy of the 'willing to ignore'. In this day and age perhaps we need to be more interested in the ethics of what we do and how we do it, for whom, and how it affects social and ecological environments and individuals; than in the rules and constraints of the game. If we look to our responsibilities (how ever we begin to discuss them) we may not be able to have more than a list of questions we might be well advised to ask ourselves each time we intend to act. So it may not be a very comfortable discussion.
Regards,
Jan
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design on behalf of Filippo A. Salustri
Sent: Tue 9/08/2005 10:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Design
Jan,
This is interesting. Okay, I can agree to set 'instinct' aside. That
was probably not a good word to use to begin with.
You're saying that a design can exist as a result of something other
than designing? Or that designing too can be unplanned/spontaneous?
I'm not sure which makes the most sense to me; I'll have to think about
that some more.
In any event, however, I would suggest that intent is still there,
whether or not the action was planned. I believe this thread started
with messages about intention being essential in designing. I'd like to
return to that and suggest that though the spring board diver may not
always plan his dive (I've seen these divers often 'rehearse' their
dives on the board - which seems to me a kind of planning, but that's
hairsplitting - I get your drift), the diver still has an intention to dive.
What do you think?
Cheers.
Fil
Jan Coker wrote:
> Fil,
> Let me continue the thought. In the case you described - not planned,
> spontaneous, even instinctive resulting in good designs, whether we call
> the action designing or not the design is an existing fact. I was
> however not referring to instinctive which is a minefield. What exactly
> is instinct in relation to a human being? I don't think we can assume or
> not assume instinct as a participant in the creative work of humans. So
> lets factor that out for the moment. not planned and spontaneous may
> only be a factor of our perception of reality. Our attachment to linear
> time suggests that if something happens very, very quickly; it is
> unplanned. Does a spring board diver plan their dive? When? In training
> do they plan the dive that they actually do in competition or do they
> develop their skill and then when they are in the competition they
> "instinctively and spontaneously act". Does a basketball player plan
> their 3 point shot? When and how. Are we talking about planning in terms
> of decision. We all make decisions all the time in everything we do. We
> are after all not inanimate objects.
> Jan
>
> Jan Coker
> UniSA
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
> related research in Design on behalf of Filippo Salustri
> *Sent:* Wed 3/08/2005 7:15 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Design
>
> Jan,
>
> Let me make sure I understand you. Are you saying there are some
> actions that are not planned, spontaneous, even instinctive that result
> in good designs, and that those actions should then be called
> 'designing' because they result in (good) designs?
>
> Cheers.
> Fil
> [...]
--
Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University Tel: 416/979-5000 x7749
350 Victoria St. Fax: 416/979-5265
Toronto, ON email: [log in to unmask]
M5B 2K3 Canada http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|
