Dear Isabella
I agree with you that if this kind of forum is to be effective then there needs to be a level of mutual respect in the tone of the debate which precludes the kind of dismissive language you refer to. I have myself withdrawn from an earlier
discussion on a similar topic in July of last year precisely because of a similarly dismissive approach from the same party.
Sincerely
Dr. Tom McGuirk ANCAD. BA. PhD.
Koordinator: e-designer graphics kursus
BEC Design Bornholm
Storegade 64
DK-3790 Hasle
Danmark?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Isabella Zuhal Parla" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: In Response: Hall
> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:26:18 +0100
>
>
> 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
>
|
