See my embedded comments.
Charles Burnette wrote:
> Fil asked
>
> On 4/24/07 11:52 AM, "Filippo A. Salustri" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> > 1. How can we get to preferred situations without thinking about 'problems'?
>
> We can't. (I prefer to call them needs and desires) But whatever, they are
> the references for our feelings and goals and help us focus how we change
> the situation they represent.
Hang on. Let's not jump to conclusions. It's one thing to say that
'problems' (or needs & desires) are as good a way as we've got to deal
with stuff. It's another to say it's the only game in town. Don't get
me wrong, I'm perfectly happy with the notion of problems. But it's
just that. Nature, as near as I can tell, has no problems. So problems
are a human construct. And if it's a human construct then maybe over
time we can come up with an alternative that would offer some benefits.
This is quite a philosophical matter.
>> >
>> > 2. While we're working that out, how can we deal effectively with how we see
>> > things now?
>
> We can't deal effectively with anything until we determine the needs and
> desires related to it that we need or want to address. The word
> "effectively" also implies goals and intentions to satisfy them (which of
> course depend on how we define and analyze the problematic situation and who
> becomes involved in its resolution.) I feel sure that you agree that
> "effectively" implies engineering of a sort!
Yes, effectively implies engineering of some sort. All I meant to say
is that while we spend some time pondering whether problem-based views
on the universe are the only game in town, we still need to work with
problems because - for now - it is the only game in town. This is quite
pragmatic compared to my point #1.
That is, we can and I think should separate coming up with new ways to
identify and solve problems, while in a parallel effort, ponder whether
thinking of things as problems is the only way to get things done.
>
> From a cognitive perspective this interests me a great deal. Design is not
> possible without intentional thought. Intentional thought is not possible
> without recognizing needs and desires.
Yes, I'd have to agree with you there.
>
> Best regards,
> Chuck
Cheers.
Fil
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|