Dear Ken, Victor and Terry,
Another go from the Lisbon Hermes (it remains to be said if Hermes refers to
the god of thieves and liars, the messenger of the gods, a guy good in
hermeneutics, or just a boy with winged helmet poking snakes with a stick,
which by the way were originally white laces).
A month ago or so, in a response to Terry, I quoted Tufan Orel and his
paper "On the Science of Design or "Designology". I think that Victor
summoned us to this thread as designologists. He didn't do it to designers.
Back to Orel's propositions, he wrote what designology should NOT be: [n]ot
telling people how to design functional objects nor developing an
epistemology of design activity. (.) [t]he most urgent task of "designology"
is coordination ( Tufan Orel explains in a note that he means "coordination"
in a sense of Karl Manheim's expressed for instance in Freedom, Power and
Democratic Planning) and adjustment of the intellectual productions which
have developed up to now in separate ways."
Later in the text he says, "The 'holistic' viewpoints of today, as William
James would say if he were still alive, are in general though-minded,
whereas the holistic approaches of tomorrow will most probably be
'tender-minded' (Orel note to see W.J. Pragmatism first chapter) since they
include the problems of the "esthetico-sphere" in the discussions of the
biosphere and the technosphere."
So coordination seemed at that time something missing. Orel's first
proposition of knowledge grouping was an optimistic 4: "1. Research on the
theoretical or epistemological approaches to design." A meta research, I
would say. "2. Research on the consensual approaches to design: Design
according to industry administration and media". "3. Research on
"professional" approaches to design" and "4. Research on everyday life or
"lived design".
I would say that the #1 hierarchy level is different from the following. I
mean that the research proposed in number one can only emerge from the
research done in the other three. I would risk to say that the only true
designological research should be the first, always as a result of the
combined analysis of later three.
At the first sight, Victor's intimation concerns the forth kind of grouping
but, somehow, I sense that he is proposing, knowing or not knowing, an
ultimate meta tool to bring sense to designology. Here I must bring to the
basket the fall of the Critic Theory of Adorno among others and its
attempted recuperation by Jurgen Habermas, as Clive Dilnot may testify, or
did testified in his Wonderground paper. The question of consequences deals
reflexively with knowledge and human interests. In this case design as
knowledge or design knowledge and fatally the possibility of a designology
based in a Critic Theory refurbished according to the essential democratic
Peirce.
In this framework, Terry and Ken are offering valuable second level examples
(not they are not able to offer first level examples) over which designology
should be built. naturally.with no pain.
But, Alas, my favourite James was the Henry. From him and others, especially
Proust, we may learn something incredible about objects and their social
consequences: The shaping of human time through objects.
I think also that Victor's urge should have a motto. The main consequence of
objects to be evaluated should be how they are shaping our time and how, by
the use of objects, the differences between humans may come to an extent of
almost separating species.
Well, I don't want to make this so big,
Cheers everybody,
Eduardo
|