terry,



you used the wrong quote.  you said:



"Some of us do not use language for everything.

We can stop using language like stopping using 'thinking'.

That means that language isn't a necessary and sufficient component of designing.

It means, epistemologically, it doesn't make sense to make language the essential core of theories of design."



personally, i don't know how you could "stop using language like stopping using 'thinking'" but i didn't want to psychologize your practice of living and focused instead on design theory, which one can read. 



i had asked you to give me an example that supports your claim that "it doesn't make sense to make language the essential core of theories of design".  to do that you would have to give me a design theory that exists in something other than language (or symbolic representations) 



and i wished you good luck in that effort



klaus



-----Original Message-----

From: Terence Love [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 

Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 6:55 AM

To: Klaus Krippendorff; [log in to unmask]

Subject: RE: types of design research -- understanding the word "research"



Hi Klaus,



You wrote: <snip> terry still owes my an example of design theory that does not use language (or drawings). in earlier exchanges he insisted that I was wrong in asserting that design theory requires language and we better be aware of what language does).<endsnip>



If I'm remembering the right discussion, the reasoning  was slightly different and focused on human thinking and functioning - not theory (see copy of post below).  I suggested that you were mistaken in assuming that designing  and thinking are purely a matter of language. I suggested that your position over privileged language and there were examples that showed that people could undertake thinking and other activities without language being of the essence. I also suggested that the  habit of assuming that language underpins everything comes as a result of overuse of words (a common situation for academics!). I've copied my original post to you below.



Theory is obviously a different issue. 



Best wishes,

Terry



==========================



Hi Klaus,



In justifying your position on abstractions and theory you say,



" i[sic] am convinced and share that convictions with many philosophers of language and social constructivists that we live and understand in language.." 



In many  posts to this list, you have expressed a position that depends on seeing language as the foundation of human functioning and thinking. 



I invite you to reconsider.



To a hammer everything is a nail. For those such as philosophers, academics and communicators whose daily life is primarily focused on words, they can tend to see the world as if it is only made of language. This follows the same pattern as those whose job is drawing and tend to see the world in terms of drawing. Similarly, engineers can tend to see the world as if it is a machine and designers can tend to view the world as if everything is a design.



That doesn’t mean that any of these is correct, complete or wholesome.



In the case of the language, there are simple personal experience and empirical tests that indicate otherwise. For example:



1. Drop out of language use for a few days. Do not talk, read or use words. The resultant experience is that thinking happens differently. It still happens but without dependence on words.



2. Look at aphasic stroke victims whose language centre has been destroyed. This is a common outcome of left-brain strokes. The individuals can still think and operate, but not through words. Both speech and writing are no longer possible, but it is clear that thinking, feeling, emoting and acting are still possible



3. I know a man here in Western Australia who is a long term meditator and who has extensive Alzheimer's disease well past the point that he would normally be in care. His habit of living moment by moment and without much dependence on a culturally, word-mediated, picture  of reality means he can continue to live by himself and function relatively normally.



The above indicate that language is only a superficial secondary aspect of human functioning (a bit like those who use cars so much that they forget that they can also get places by walking). 



This suggests that we should view its role more as a tool. A tool for improving communication and extending our memory.



Language fulfils these roles better if we focus on using definitions and socially agreed meanings that reduce ambiguity - rather than reifying the way individuals use words differently. I would suggest that the latter hinders rather than helps overall.



In developing a stronger and more coherent foundation for design research across design disciplines. It may be better that we see language and the use of words in this way.



Thoughts?



Best regards,

Terry



===

Dr. Terence Love

Love Web Services

Tel/Fax: +61 (0)8 9305 7629

Mobile: 0434975 848

[log in to unmask]

www.lovewebservices.com

===