Dear Jude and Francois,
Thank you for two elegant posts. I've been aware of new proposals to supplement or replace GNP, but I have not yet given them the thought they deserve in relation to design. I especially appreciated the way Jude extended Francois's note to anchor it in a deep philosophical and ethical argument.
Normally, I hate "me too" posts, but this is not a "me too." It is an expression of praise for an elegant post that I wish I had written.
My hat is off to you.
Ken
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:57:31 +0800, CHUA Soo Meng Jude (PLS) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
--snip--
Already in Simon and March one sees them arguing for a broader repertoire of preferences and engineering/designing curriculum and organizations to help us discover new preferences. Design itself becomes an important heuristic or technology of foolishness to search for new preferences: experience drinking wine, you might like it! Design, and then you might emerge new effects which can then become new goals, if these effects are desirable. Says Simon and March. Simon in his later pieces spoke of a new reason to satisfice: because our final newly discovered goal-preferences are inter-alia incommensurable. Therefore one cannot maximize by comparing across options. Already here one sees Simon edging away from the value-monism of the typical GDP measures of growth.
--snip--
Francois Nsenga wrote:
--snip--
Whether in academy completing a PhD, teaching or researching, or in business practice, I thought important for us all to be aware and to explore further how our field of Design would fit in, and eventually actively contribute to the implementation of the new paradigm.
--snip--
|