Dear Ken and all,
I find it necessary to point out that neither myself, nor Jerry, nor Chuck for that matter is oblivious to the massive number of literature or amount of intellectual thinking that has gone into the area of design philosophy, or design thinking. What is however unique, and productive for me insofar as Chuck's paper is concerned is first its ambition to distill the fundamental categories of thought associated to design thinking, and second, to somehow connect all this in what seems to be a nascent but new philosophical theory for design. As I said before, his scope reminded me of Simon's work. Perhaps Peter Sloterdijk may come as a close second in its content; but Sloterdijk's major work is still hot off the press at least in the english-speaking world.
Like many other areas of theoretical thinking that is occurring among learned individuals, I think it is genuinely hard to act as if one is first on the scene, and for this reason, we should be given sufficient credit here in this forum based on this understanding: I don't think anyone can get away pretending to be original in this way and I don't think anyone is guilty of that. I am sure all the literature that you have cited are relevant to Chuck's quest; but having gone through some of these myself, I have reasons to believe that Chuck's approach is analytic philosophy for design, for which many of these written within the broad domain of (concrete) design analysis while capable of informing his work, cannot sufficiently be extrapolated to this form of work.
Best,
Jeff
-Quote-
>
> How can anyone say that no one has addressed these issues?
>
> Yours,
>
> Ken
-End Quote-
|