Dear Tim,
yep, I agree, there is more than one general verb/noun and one could unpack things such that:
BE implies DO as DO implies BE even if, in order to DO, one must first BE. (Is there a moment of BEING prior to a being finding itself doing?) And BEINGS DO but DOs do not BEING. I'd still urge the DO example.
The STUFF and THING set is also open to equivalence of a more slippery kind.
All STUFF can be called THINGS - but note - we can have a THING but we cannot have a STUFF (you can get stuffed but that does NOT mean you've had a STUFF) ; we can have THINGS, but not STUFFS (we can have a stuff-ups) (yes, I understand that STUFF is a class of things and so it is a singular plural construction - which again is about differentiation).
So, at some point THINGS are more differentiated than STUFF which is why I wanted to use THING as my general noun in the case of the design of a thing. Differentiation is the key, for me. Hence, we can follow Heidegger's What is a Thing?
And, STUFF is often used in a derogatory sense - for example, compare: "The falling out of things" with "the falling out of stuff". THINGS can replace STUFF in a neutral way whereas STUFF replacing THINGS is always adding flavour.
One can of course say, for example, "the stuff that Sir Jonathan Ive designs is great" but that's like "Hey girlfriend, keep your sticky paws off my stuff". "This THING that Sir Jony designed" is the start of a critique.
God? Is She a THING? As an object before the mind, She is a thing and some thing she is.
Back to my alphabet soup.
cheers
keith
>>> Tim Smithers <[log in to unmask]> 04/04/13 6:56 PM >>>
Dear Keith,
Very nice!
I see, however, a need to grossly complicate your scheme.
I think there are only two general verbs in English, not just
one: to do; and, to be.
And, I think there are only two general nouns in English, not
just one: a thing; and, (some) stuff.
So, combining your verb, to do, with stuff, we could have, some
done stuff.
Then, following your line, designing becomes the done stuff
for (some) done stuff.
But I'd also like to employ my second verb in this to say,
designing might then be understood as the done stuff for
(some) to be done stuff.
And, because I always prefer to see everything as process,
rather than as states and transitions, I'd be quite happy for
the done stuff to be input for the done stuff for (some
more/new) to be done stuff. This is, I think, how we become
aware of the possibility of producing and re-producing
difference.
This way we avoid the need to appeal to a God or the Gods (are
they things, by the way?), and we capture the always on-going
never quite ending quality of designing (though it often has
to stop, but not for designing reasons) ... out of which come
designs, sometimes, at least.
Best regards,
Tim
===============================================
On Apr 3, 2013, at 23:51 , Keith Russell wrote:
> Dear Kari-Hans,
>
> Maybe there is only one general verb in English = to do
>
> Maybe there is only one general noun in English = a thing
>
> If we put the two together we get = a done thing
>
> This sounds like the start of the noun you are looking for.
>
> The Design of something might then be seen as = the done thing of a done thing.
>
> Except this would allow for the outputs as well as the inputs so we might need = the pre-done thing of a done thing.
>
> Which also allows for outputs but such outputs would be conditioned by the prior aspects of the pre-done and hence a primary level of intention would be implied (the machine intends to make screw because it was intended to make screws - there is a trail back to a design).
>
> Of course we now have the problems of seeds and trees and then on to God.
>
> If we allow that there might be an originary moment of design when someone first became conscious that planting the seeds on one plant rather than another led to a significantly different outcome, then we can allow that the concept of a designed world is the origin of design and not the other way around. Design only become design when we are aware of the possibility of producing and re-producing difference.
>
> It is not tragedy unless the hero knowingly acts to bring about the tragic fate.
>
> cheers
>
> keith
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
