Resorting to words like 'sloppy thinking' indicates
inadequacy of debate, mind and understanding (not to
mention the fact that you haven't read a single word I
have written). If you had, your responses would be
coherent and not absurd fabrications of things I/we
never said.
Kindly, please, continue this debate with someone else
who may want to!
Isabella
--- Peter Hall <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> you do not need to expand defintion to be creative.
> it is restrictive to think creativity is confined to
> the arts.
> all research is about pushing back barriers.
> not all of us engage in sloppy thinking.
>
> > It is precisely the approach, act or attitude of
> only
> > considering the first part of the first definition
> of
> > definition you are demonstrating:
> >
> > • noun 1 a statement of the exact meaning of a
> word
> > or the nature or scope of something. 2 the action
> or
> > process of defining.
> >
> > Scope of something. Process of defining.
> >
> > Dictionaries, and therefore definitions/terms have
> > evolved over the years; language is evolving
> because
> > there is always scope and process to improve,
> expand,
> > modify definitions*.
> >
> > This debate has illustrated that there are
> different
> > types of research and researcher; some which
> prefer to
> > research the already researched, accepting only
> old,
> > limited definitions without any desire to do any
> of
> > the above, and some pushing boundaries or creating
> > room to generate expanded, improved, modified,
> edited
> > definitions.
> >
> > Here is a fantastic text about the Oxford
> Dictionary
> > and how definitions of words have evolved:
> >
> > ....These slips were then filed alphabetically by
> the
> > word they defined. This crude but efficient
> process is
> > the source of each term's documentation, from its
> > earliest form to its most modern recorded usage.
> >
> > When the Oxford University Press took over the
> project
> > in 1878, the editors thought that the material
> amassed
> > by then would adequately cover the scope of the
> > original philological intentions, but Murray was
> > dissatisfied and found the completed work limited
> in
> > scope.
> >
> > Murray organised another programme in 1879,
> seeking a
> > selection of quotations from a broader base of
> > publishing history, including modern books as
> well,
> > thinking popular literature as important for the
> > purpose of detailing the true language as more
> > scholarly texts....
> >
> > So,
> >
> > Philology, education, art research....these are
> very
> > much concerned with questioning, expanding and
> always
> > RESEARCHING INTO THE ADEQUACY, APPLICABILITY,
> SCOPE
> > and PROCESS OF THINGS, including, definitions.
> >
> > Isabella Zuhal Parla
> >
> >
> > --- Peter Hall <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >> > Yes, but this is taking a philosophical
> approach
> >> or
> >> > semanticity to the extreme....definitions are
> >> often
> >> > quite very useful in conducting any type of
> >> research
> >> > as starting, progression or end points (they
> are
> >> never
> >> > just one rigid definition which was started
> >> > off with), any researcher would agree that they
> >> are
> >> > 'flexible' concepts or tools to work with and
> >> > to expand!
> >>
> >> I do research, have done for about 20 years.
> >> I emphatically do not agree defintions should be
> >> flexible.
> >>
> >> Philisophy since the time of the Greeks has
> sought
> >> to distinguish
> >> valid from invalid reasoning. Any text on logic
> is
> >> based on Greek
> >> thought. One form of invalid reasoning is a to
> >> arrive at a conclusion
> >> having stipulated that the conclusion is true.
> This
> >> is called the
> >> fallacy of stipulation. Flexible defintions allow
> >> one to indulge
> >> in such a fallacy or "it is true, because I say
> it
> >> is!".
> >>
> >> So, my defintion of "defintion" is not one I have
> >> stipulated.
> >>
> >> Foolish things stipulation allows:
> >> Example: an aeroplane is a drawing because
> [reason
> >> deleted]
> >> Example: a non-drawing is a drawing, because
> [reason
> >> deleted]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > The definition of definition once again!
> >> >
> >> > --- Garry Barker <[log in to unmask]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------
> >> > RE: In Response
> >> > The fact that any definition of drawing can be
> >> > challenged, isn't as interesting as the
> potential
> >> for
> >> > any definition to be a point of departure for
> >> > practice. The use of the threads of argument
> are
> >> in
> >> > helping define parameters within which certain
> >> types
> >> > of drawing based activities can actually be
> >> practiced.
> >> > Invention often occurring when trying to
> operate
> >> > within narrow constraints.
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: The UK drawing research network mailing
> list
> >> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf
> >> Of
> >> > Peter Hall
> >> > Sent: 30 August 2006 15:13
> >> > To: [log in to unmask]
> >> > Subject: Re: In Response to Barker, Appleby et
> all
> >> >
> >> > Suppose a defintion of drawing were available,
> >> > what purpose would it serve?
> >> >
> >> > (I am used to defintions that allow theories to
> be
> >> > constructed).
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > * * This email and any files transmitted with
> it
> >> are
> >> > confidential and intended solely for the use of
> >> the
> >> > individual or entity to whom they are
> addressed.
> >> This
> >> > email represents the personal views of the
> >> > author/sender. The author/sender has no
> authority
> >> or
> >> > delegation to bind Leeds College of Art and
> Design
> >> by
> >> > this e-mail and Leeds College of Art and Design
> >> > accepts no responsibility whatsoever for its
> >> contents.
> >> > Please note that any reply to this email may
> be
> >> > screened. **
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
___________________________________________________________
> >> > Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version
> is
> >> radically easier to use"
> >> > – The Wall Street Journal
> >> > http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
___________________________________________________________
> > Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection
> and 1GB storage with All
> > New Yahoo! Mail.
> http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
> >
> >
> >
>
___________________________________________________________
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
|