Hi Terry,

I like your comment. Nice image North - South, 
although the map seems to be slightly more 
patchwork-like.

Made me think about my home on your map. Am I a Northerner?

And an incident at the legendary PhD conference 
Ohio 1998 came to my mind. Victor Margolin 
described Herbert Simon as an extreme Northerner. 
And I dared to intervene: "Victor, have a look at 
chapter 6 in the ´Sc. of the Art.´: ´Social 
Planning: Designing the Evolving Artefact´!", 
where Simon presents himself as an inhabitant of 
(at least) the Midlands.

It is always worth while re-reading Simon.

And the old question shows up: any substantial 
progress (except complexification) in the debate?


Best wishes from Northern Germany,

Jonas

_________





At 11:13 Uhr +0800 27.07.2007, Terence wrote:
>Hi Klaus,
>
>Thanks for your message. Yesterday I borrowed  Simon's 'The sciences of the
>artificial'(1969 and 1981) from the library and read them  check my memories
>of it.
>
>What came to mind reviewing Simon's books and the recent messages on this
>list  was that how we see things very much depends on where we view them
>from at that moment.
>
>In 'England' there are different views from 'the North' and 'the South'.
>From the 'North' point of view, the south and the attitudes associated with
>it starts from just below Manchester. From the South point of view, the
>attitudes and behaviours of 'the North' appear from just north of London.
>Individuals  from the 'North' and the 'South' interpret the same information
>from  the middle territory between Manchester and the north of London,
>differently.
>
>From a perspective of studying the design theory discourse of engineering
>design (the North), Simon's perspective is relatively humanist. It has many
>'South' attributes and behaviours compared to taking a purely technical
>perspective - especially his work on human organisations and the biological
>underpinnings of subjective interpreted experience. E.g. his writing on the
>role of complexity of human environments (from the North persepctive) points
>to the subtlety of human interpretations and subjective opinions - as
>underpinned by emotion, and the rich human depth of an individual's day to
>day experiences.) The picture of Simon's position emerges from noticing the
>many differences between it and design theory based purely on mechanical
>object properties; typical of much of the engineering design discourse. A
>similar feel, but less computer oriented is found in the guides to design by
>Glegg.
>
>My guess is that from your perspective (the 'South'?) you interpret the
>words in Simon's book differently?
>
>Looking over the recent messages on Phd-design.  I feel  much of the
>differences in discourses about design and anthropology over the last few
>days have a similar  sort of 'North' -'South' flavor.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Terry
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Klaus Krippendorff [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Thursday, 26 July 2007 1:48 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: RE: Origins of 'The Ecology of the Artificial'?
>
>terry,
>i have the book right in front of me.
>he is not concerned with a subjective interpreted activity.  he worked with
>newell on the design of computers and used them in solving problems
>algorithmically.  his notion of satisficing as opposed to optimizing admits
>rationalistic limitations without referring to subjective or emotional
>issues.  it is also interesting that he had reasoned objection to the kind
>of research that describes what is, being more concerned with the logic of
>what should be klaus
>