folks,
thanks for these and other off line expressions of support.
i like provocative propositions, like teena's, for they make us think what
we normally take for granted. we should build on them rather that find ways
to dismiss them.
but i don't enjoy defending myself against false accusations of
"logic-chopping" and "incorrect syllogisms," making dissertations about just
one lousy sentence that also happened to be logically correct, and exactly
what i meant to say.
instead, i prefer to stay focused on alternative ways of conceptualizing the
world.
as i said elsewhere, to me, designers need to be able to question what
others take for granted, explore ways that others claim not passable, try to
think the commonly unthinkable, and open possibilities that authorities want
to close. this critical attitude also means interrogating all kinds of holy
cows, all kinds of -isms, including the cherished scientific methods and
findings (in relation to design). history has shown repeatedly that what we
believed to be unshakably truths a while ago might well be rejected as
untenable today. it stands to reason that the truth of propositions can be
changed by nothing else but design.
although i can and do design small things as well, i am far more interested
in the larger picture.
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lily Diaz
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 2:06 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The Entailments of History -- [Was: language and fiction]
Hi,
I agree with M P Ranjan and Terry. It is really exciting to follow these
debates.
It would be unfortunate if these exchange were to be "sanitized" so that we
would loose the human dimension. Leave that for the papers!
Best regards,
Lily
-------------------------------------
ýý ý ý ý
Dr. Lily Diaz
Professor, Systems of Representation
& Digital Cultural Heritage
University of Art and Design Helsinki
135C Hämeentie SF 00560
Helsinki, Finland
+ 358 9 75630 338
+ 358 9 75630 555 (FAX)
On 30.1.2008, at 7.01, Ranjan MP wrote:
> Dear Friends
>
> I tend to agree with Terry on his post below. I have been a mute
> witness to this amazing debate and have as a result learned a great
> deal for which I am most grateful to the numerous contributors. I have
> written off-list to a number of members and we should figure out ways
> to keep the discourse going without letting it slip into personality
> based controversies, if we can, but we are all human and this list
> does not give room for the use of emoticons, which sometimes removes
> the stress from our exchanges.
>
> Our recently concluded Cricket Test Series between India and Australia
> has had its share of controversies and the closure is not at all
> satisfying with the money bags coming in the way of the players
> sorting things out amongst themselves and that is not "Cricket"
> either.
>
> I have been quite silent on this list for a long time not because I am
> not involved, far from it, the discussions are positively rivetting,
> do go on. I have been pretty active on my blog these past six months
> and now have about fifty posts online for anyone who may be interested
> in catching up on the design concerns that keep us alive and kicking
> in the Indian sub-continent with its huge problems and equally huge
> opportunities for design research and action. Do take a look in case
> you are interested.
> <http://www.design-for-india.blogspot.com/>
>
> With warm regards
>
> M P Ranjan
> from my office at NID
> 30 January 2008 at 10.30 am IST
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Prof M P Ranjan
> Faculty of Design
> Head, Centre for Bamboo Initiatives at NID (CFBI-NID) Chairman,
> GeoVisualisation Task Group (DST, Govt. of India)
> (2006-2008)
> National Institute of Design
> Paldi
> Ahmedabad 380 007 India
>
> Tel: (off) 91 79 26623692 ext 1090
> Tel: (res) 91 79 26610054
> Fax: 91 79 26605242
>
> email: [log in to unmask]
> web site: http://homepage.mac.com/ranjanmp web domain:
> http://www.ranjanmp.in
> blog: <http://www.design-for-india.blogspot.com>
> education blog: <http://www.design-concepts-and-concerns.blogspot.com>
> education blog: http://www.visible-information-india.blogspot.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Terence wrote:
>> Dear Wolfgang, Ken, Klaus and other combatants,
>>
>> Congratulations and thanks to Ken, Klaus and others for being kind
>> enough to have this extended debate in public .
>>
>> This is a research list for PhD level study around Design. An aim of
>> the list is to help the learning and education of PhD candidates.
>> This robust discussion between Ken, Klaus and others is important in
>> apprenticeship terms for helping PhD students learn a variety of
>> professional research and academic skills.
>>
>> This is education in high level professional academic skills that
>> rarely can occur in supervision. It also offers authentic learning
>> because any PhD student can join in if they wish.
>> The debate has gone through various phases that a supervisor can
>> tease out for their post graduate students, or post-doc mentors for
>> their postdocs.
>>
>> There is still some mileage the debate in learning terms, not least
>> in terms of how to complete, close or postpone the debate in a
>> professional manner.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Terry
>> ____________________
>> Dr. Terence Love FDRS, AMIMechE
>> Design-focused Research Group, Design Out Crime Research Unit,
>> Associate Researcher at Digital Ecosystems and Business Intelligence
>> Institute Research Associate at Planning and Transport Research
>> Centre Curtin University, PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845
>> Mob: 0434 975 848 Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629 (home office)
>> [log in to unmask] ____________________ Visiting Research Fellow,
>> Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development Management
>> School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
>> [log in to unmask]
>> ____________________
>> Visiting Professor, Member of Scientific Council, UNIDCOM/IADE,
>> Lisbon, Portugal ____________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
>> related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>> Behalf Of Wolfgang Jonas
>> Sent: Monday, 28 January 2008 10:31 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: The Entailments of History -- [Was: language and
>> fiction]
>>
>> Dear Ken and Klaus,
>>
>> could you please stop this debate in public, please. Even its
>> entertainment value is tending towards zero, meanwhile.
>>
>>
>> Thanks a lot,
>>
>> Jonas
>>
>> __________
>>
>>
>> At 11:13 Uhr +0100 28.01.2008, Ken Friedman wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Klaus,
>>>
>>> The ad hominem argument is not your argument on my views or logic.
>>> The ad hominem argument involves specific comments on my person in
>>> which (1) you state that it is barely worth your time to debate me,
>>> (2) un-named others tell you that I distort what is being said,
>>> etc., and (3) state by implication that I am careless in judgments
>>> and treat colleagues and list members disrespectfully.
>>>
>>> Even you are correct in these judgements, this would be ad hominem
>>> argument -- an argument on personal qualities or characteristics.
>>>
>>> To contemplate alternative possibilities, let's imagine that all
>>> this is true. I may be a worthless opponent in debate. Many may feel
>>> that I distort what is being said, and they may be right.
>>> They may tell you that I justify singular points with lengthy
>>> citations from dictionaries. Now I've imagined that I am placing
>>> ideas in context, using the dictionary to illustrate common
>>> meanings, but I may be mistaken and they may be correct. They may
>>> also be correct in telling you that I hide my opinions behind
>>> objective terms. I may be careless in judgement, and disrespectful
>>> to my colleagues and to people on the list.
>>>
>>> If all these things are so, they remain ad hominem claims, claims
>>> about my person. Even the dictionary claim remains ad hominem as you
>>> use it, since neither you nor the others show that I use citations
>>> merely to justify singular points, as contrasted with using the
>>> etymology and reception of words as one link in a larger discourse.
>>>
>>> You did not simply show me where my argument on incorrect syllogism
>>> was not so. To say that something "isn't so" is an objectivist
>>> claim, and you have every right to make it. But you did more. You
>>> made claims about my person, explicit and implicit, further
>>> asserting that others hold similar beliefs, argumentum ad populum.
>>>
>>> If your purpose is to discuss my person, fire up those lightning
>>> bolts. But please acknowledge that these are arguments about my
>>> personal qualities and failings rather than arguments to the issues
>>> I propose.
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>>
>>> Ken
>>>
>>>
>>> Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> dear ken,
>>>>
>>>> i agree, it's wise to cool this line of arguing: blaming me in
>>>> several
>>>>
>> posts
>>
>>>> for incorrect syllogisms, and when i point out that this isn't so,
>>>> you see it as an ad hominem attack, complaining about your person
>>>> ....
>>>>
>>>> klaus
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Klaus wrote earlier these comments that I label ad hominem:
>>>
>>> (1)
>>>
>>>
>>>> >it's barely worth my time to engage with you in public debates
>>>> about
>>>>
>>>>> things that may not matter to other participants in this list, but
>>>>> it
>>>>>
>>>> >bothers me and
>>>>
>>> (2)
>>>
>>>
>>>> i have been told by others as well how you so often
>>>>
>>>>> distort what is being said and justify your singular point with
>>>>> lengthy
>>>>>
>>>> >citations from dictionaries, hide your opinions behind objective
>>>> terms,
>>>>
>>> (3)
>>>
>>>
>>>> just be a little careful with your judgments and treat you
>>>> colleagues and people on the list with some respect.
>>>>
>>
>> Email Scanned for Virus & Dengerous Content.
>>
>>
>
|
