To all, this time ...
I have to support Terry in at least regarding language as a tool - since
I am working with a modified version of Jakobson's model of language
use, that flits between "back there" tacitly and "out here" explicitly.
Keith wrote: "in that gesture transcends, it is of language" - but
shouldn't that read: in that gesture needs to transcend, it begets
language (sorry Keith). Precisely because language is so imprecise (so
very often, since the only real precision is mine, for my own
consumption) we have interpretations (of interpretations, of ...), and
in trying to share my "precision" with an other, that YOU has to delve
underneath the skin of my words (rough Wittgenstein)
I have found the work of John Shotter of immense value in this regard:
he also speaks of a designerly way of knowing, a third way of seeing, if
you will, that needs to put the worldly use of language in its proper
place, something that is especially important for writing (about
design). "As an alternative to such a kind of disengaged writing ...
[Shotter speaks of] ... a dialogical-prospective-relational style of
writing (or withness-writing)"."
WHY? Because much (all?) of design happens 'in the moment' or in the
'space between us' - and we have to struggle afterwards to put this
'understanding' into the words (and hence the worlds) of the language we
use.
Shotter quotes Wittgenstein: "this sort of behaviour is pre-linguistic:
that a language-game is based on it, that it is the prototype of a way
of thinking and not the result of thought"... what makest thou of that?
(remembering Buber's I/ thou).
In a research-like design process that (deliberately) includes rough,
what-do-you-feel-about-me, artefacts/models, the valuable input comes
from a phenomenological interaction that searches for the right words,
often inadequately.
Johann
John Shotter 1999. Writing from within "living moments":
"withness-writing" rather than "aboutness-writing"
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~jds/
>>> Chris Rust <[log in to unmask]> 10/03/07 2:37 PM >>>
Lars Albinsson wrote:
> The "assistant" metaphor was far more useful than the "computer
support"
> metaphor.
>
>
Of course that's right but there is a deeper level of engagement in
which one stops asking questions (which require the other person to have
a supply of answers) and starts to observe, share, exchange and reflect.
Artefacts and actions can often do more in this kind of inquiry than
words. In fact attempts to codify the issues in language at an early
stage will often run aground on the sandbanks of preconceptions.
Unfortunately Terry's wish for shared precision only works among
committed experts (the people he is addressing here so that's OK),
everybody else has the right to whatever interpretations of words that
they have found useful.
best wishes from Sheffield. Where working men call each other "Love"
Chris
*********************
Chris Rust
Art and Design Research Centre
Sheffield Hallam University, S11 8UZ, UK
+44 114 225 2706
[log in to unmask]
www.chrisrust.net
|