Dear Klaus,
Yes, I see your point - it comes up in Hegel, interestingly, in relation to the self-ironic artist. Such an artist might, for example, follow the Schlegel brothers in not caring whether you look at the front or the back of a painting because you are so self-satisfied that it is your static opinion that matters and hence, anything you make is OK because you made it.
Hegel's answer is that the self must give itself over to that which it is NOT and then incorporate that which it is NOT in order to find a new self.
This is very much the journey of Christianity and/or Jungs's de-centered self-transforming model of the growth of individuation.
Logically, this process is implicit in consciousness and so a thorough self-reflection would make one aware of the insufficiency of just BEING a self - try as I might I can not bring about desired states by willing them or wishing them.
Thus, in Freud's terms, we have the pleasure principle (anything that reinforces my static self) confronted by the reality principle (the world was there before me and exceeds me in every possible way - even my consciousness exceeds my awareness which, I can become aware of through self-reflection - that is, treating consciousness as an object).
So, I am in conflict through just being. Should I take an ironic/adolescent view of this confrontation, I will say something like "whatever" and go to my self-ironic bedroom and watch my self-ironic TV (Big Bang Theory!!!). And, while I am half-convinced I might die (since I saw uncle Harry's corpse) I take the superior position - at least mum and dad will go first.
Obviously one can fake and be ironic about the design/becoming/doing process and simply iterate and wait for Steve Jobs to magically go "wow Sir Jony, that is just way cool like having sex in front of people" (see the Walter Isaacson Biography for the sex in front of people part).
BEING, through self-reflection can become aware of its grounding in NOT-BEING and hence the pattern of desire emerges. This pattern, on reflection in BEING, can establish through DOING and reflection on BECOMING/DOING, the kenotic pattern that typifies BEING. In Hegel's terms, I am mostly what I am NOT and what I am NOT is vastly more than what I am. DOING as BECOMING is implicit in BEING since BEING can be aware of its inadequacy to itself.
So, I take DESIGN as entering the self-reflective BEING like cybernaut occupies their position on the boat. DESIGN was already always there, by implication.
Which is not to say that the historical moment of awareness that there is someone steering the boat (in what direct?) is diminished - but it is to say that such a moment is a moment of BEING not DOING.
cheers
keith
>>> Klaus Krippendorff <[log in to unmask]> 04/05/13 12:39 PM >>>
i am glad,
keith,
you like that direction.
i think BEING is static. the possibility of BEING becoming BECOMING requires, i suggest, a particular kind of DOING. i wonder if BEING, requiring nothing but self-reflection, is capable of DESIGN or BECOMING
where does DESIGN enter the self-reflecting BEING? i think it can't. DESIGN is the stance of continually BECOMING, moving from one BECOMING to another BECOMING by changing the world surrounding it and itself as well.
cheers
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Keith Russell
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 9:17 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Ideas and definitions of what is "a design" in a broad sense
Dear Klaus,
yep - I'm cool with that - especially in the sense that by "just being there" BEING is everywhere already available whereas as "doing is becoming" implies that DOING is only there when the just of BEING is realized as the BECOMING of DOING.
That is, BECOMING is a fundamental possibility of BEING and is evidenced in the concepts I mentioned before: mortality, natality, plasticity, viscosity.
BEING seeks to determine and re-determine itself by giving itself over to DOING as BECOMING - this is a pretty straight forward kind of Hegelian kenotic (loss and recovery of self) dialectic.
Even in just BEING I am BECOMING since BEING is aware, in its "just being" of absence as the ground of presence (BEING and NOTHINGNESS).
BECOMING as DOING is then a kind of negation of BEING (as just being) but it (BECOMING) will also be found, by consciousness to just BE even if the BEING now is significantly different (by design or by force of events).
Hence we are in a dialectic of BEING and BECOMING which is a lot like "I got out of bed this morning to find it had rained overnight and my tanks are now full".
cheers
keith
>>> Klaus Krippendorff <[log in to unmask]> 04/05/13 11:48 AM
>>> >>>
dear keith,
what about: being is just being there, but doing is becoming
cheers
klaus
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
