Terence Love wrote:
> A designer does not do these things by thinking. They temporarily usurp
> the bodies homeostasis processes to represent complex dimensions of problem
> and solutions physically in the body by small shifts in hormone levels,
> posture etc (secondarily represented in the brain).
I'm grateful to Terry for spelling out a position that he often hints at.
My problem with this approach is that I can see what Terry is getting at
but cannot see what to do with it.
My colleagues Jeff Baggott and Nick Dulake are working on a similar
problem, of relating an internal technical process to its external
effects. Their partner is a chemist who has a detailed understanding of
nano level effects. The chemist can tell you all about these effects and
their implications for the wider world but only by setting out the
mathematics. Jeff and Nick (film maker and designer) find the
mathematics incomprehensible, as would most of us who had not studied
both chemistry and mathematics sufficiently to become a professor of
chemistry, but they recognise that the chemist has a deep tacit
understanding of what the maths create for us, he just lacks the ability
to tell anybody who is not another chemist. The chemist can, of course,
build us a machine (a formulation) that will apply those effects in
useful ways but we cannot see that machine working so we are none the wiser.
To solve that "problem", Jeff and Nick negotiate (slowly and with
difficulty) with the chemist to come up with valid metaphors - three
dimensional models and behaviours that allow us to understand the
chemistry sufficiently for our needs. It is very important that the
metaphors are shared ones - the chemist must agree that they represent
the mathematics with enough precision - the project started because the
chemist was unhappy with naive metaphors (eg robots riding on sperm)
that concealed the science. The work they are doing seems to me to be
essential if the rest of us (policy makers, business people,
schoolchildren, designers etc etc) are to make effective use of the new
knowledge in our complicated lives.
So now Terry has set out his idea (In Michael Polanyi's terms, a glimpse
of a further shore) we are going to need several things that the
nano-chemists are developing in their case:
1. An intuitive/learned ability* that allows some people to relate the
very complex and subtle combinations of effects, that he hints at, to
their equally complex and subtle external results.
2. A narrative framework that allows us to comprehend the actual
framework at work
3. Some practical formulations that we can apply to understanding or
(preferably) facilitating designing.
If I can see all that coming along then I would be prepared to start
using it in my own thinking. Until then I'll stick with Rittel and
Polanyi's clumsy attempts. And thanks to Keith Russell for that quote
which seems to describe my own experience closely enough to convince me
that at least three people (Polanyi, Russell and me) have the germ of a
useful framework that suits us three at least. So we are happy, how
about the rest of you? :o)
*Along with Polanyi, Dewey and others I am happy that people can learn
these kinds of things and I don't need to understand the biochemical
underpinning. But to be consistent, Terry's new system would have to
explain all that stuff as well.
My suspicion is that Terry is attempting to understand the art of
drilling holes in metal by studying only the electrical fields in the
motor of the power drill. :o) :o)
best wishes from Sheffield
Chris Rust
|