On 16/05/2007, at 10:59 PM, Clive Dilnot wrote:
> I am quite sure that David Sless is perfectly capable of
> understanding Anne-Marie Willis's question. Either that, or one
> might worry as to the titles and letters he boasts of in his
> signature.
How odd Clive, that you find a mechanically manufactured signature
worthy of a personal comment for us all to worry about, rather than
my lack of understanding. An undignified mode of discourse. If anyone
is genuinely worried about such matters, let me know, and I will send
you a full CV. BTW, my title of Professor (thrice conferred) is by
Universities that invited me to take up the title, and I am deeply
honoured by their invitations and the title. None of which is in any
way relevant to my lack of understanding and linking the two is
nonsense, even if I'm a complete charlatan.
Contrary to the claim, I am not 'perfectly capable of understanding'
this question. I am profoundly INCAPABLE of understanding it. Here
are some of the sources of my incapacity. Anne-Marie tells us that
the question is 'basic'. In what sense am I to read that? Is she
saying it is basic in the sense that it is simple, important, or
fundamental? It does make a difference. Then there is this curious
phrase 'prefigurative practices'. Is this just another way of saying
'planning', 'designing', or 'policy making' or is it more akin to the
way the phrase is used in Marxist theory? Again, it makes a difference.
Finally, we have this juxtaposition of the totally decontextualised
'adequate' (George Orwell would have noticed that one), and the
clichι 'what humanity faces'. I could spend a great deal of time
pondering where one has to stand in order to see ''what humanity
faces' and wonder still further about the nature of anyone who claims
to see this, but why labour the point?
If I was a follower of Derrida, I could have great deconstructive
sport with the juxtapositioning of the metaphors in the question I'm
supposed to be perfectly capable of understanding, and demonstrate
some vanishing signifiers along with any hope of understanding, but
again, why labour the point.
If it's a serious matter in design and design philosophy, it deserves
all our capacities to clearly articulate what we have to say and what
it is we are talking about. Obfuscation, even on the moral high
ground, remains obfuscation.
I would appreciate if someone could get us back to the more
interesting issues of failure in planning and fragmentation in
architecture.
David
--
blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
web: http://www.communication.org.au
Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
CEO Communication Research Institute
helping people communicate with people
Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
Phone: +61 (0)3 9489 8640
60 Park Street Fitzroy North Melbourne Australia 3068
|