Dear Chris,
One important aspect of this thread is teasing out different meanings. I agree with you ... I do not think we mean something different, but rather different nuances and aspects of a related set of concepts.
Since no one forces us to take on the professional obligation of service to others, I see the term "obligation" as a voluntary way of life. Physicians, lawyers, nurses, warriors -- all who serve humans in social context -- take an oath of service. This oath constitutes an obligation, yet it is also a commitment, an honor, and a privilege. While some designers do not take an oath, Herbert Simon's concept of "design science" clearly covers medical professionals, and it covers many aspects of the work of the lawyer or warrior. Compare this with the concept of "bushido," the way of the warrior, represented in the books of Miyamoto Musashi, Tsunetomo Yamamoto, or Yagyu Munenori.
For the professional in service to others, obligation represents a choice and "an inner tacit commitment that drives you to do something." It is also the passion that drives you to solve a problem for the joy of it.
I'm sure that I've missed some aspects of this here, too, but all these issues come into play in appropriate passion -- arete linked with phronesis.
Yours,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
Professor
Dean
Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
Telephone +61 3 9214 6755
www.swinburne.edu.au/design
--
Chris Rust wrote:
[quoting my earlier post]
Ken Friedman wrote:
First, as Chris notes, commitment is an issue. Whether or not we are in a flow state, we are obliged to do the jobs we agree to take on.
[responding]
That's a rather functional position Ken. When I say "commitment" I mean an inner tacit commitment that drives you to do something. Obligation does not have to come in to it.
|