David and others interested in design objects

In David Sless's paper 1) he writes "Anscombe’s profound insight of relevance to communication was to realise that statements about an author’s intentions are logically and empirically part of one’s reading of an author’s text, not an intrinsic part of either the text or the author. "

I agree with the first but not the last sentence, precisely because I take a different position regarding an object of thought/communication. My position is that any message is dynamically conceived and variably interpreted in the context of the moment of interpretation by the author as well as the interpreter, both of whom apply their background knowledge, preferences, and habits of mind to the task of expression/interpretation. No matter how the object arises in thought intentionality (needs and desires - the intentional "why") is attributed to it through an intentional/design/stance.)  2)  3)

I think both David and Anscombe come dangerously close to subscribing to the "intentional fallacy" of literary criticism. (Ignoring the thoughts, context, and background of an author to judge only their product.) David does dig himself out of that "position" in the paper.

"...everyone who communicates is a participant in the process with a unique part to play and place to stand. In a very real sense, an individual is inside any communicative act that he is participating in, and therefore has a position within that act. This position can never be an outsider’s position; there can be no such thing as an objective observer of communication. ... ‘this signal has an author, and is intentional, and is thus communication, from my position’. In other words, a person constructs an author, and sees himself or herself as a reader of a text, a participant in a communicative activity." This sounds like a design stance to me.

I think many people have not yet moved to the view that human behavior is mentally constructed, complexly modeled, and open to a variety of interpretations. We are no longer in a world where "objects" are fully defined and comprehended 4) They are situated ideas, or clusters of connected information open to many interpretations and transformations. Design objects are no longer bounded, or "observable" in any large sense. Facebook knows that but many designers and design researchers cling to old positivist, gestalt, and causal models. Hopefully our young PhD candidates are learning about how to deal with more open "objects" in terms of situated needs and desires, background behaviors, and cultural preferences. I'd welcome learning about any "science of interpretation" going on.

1) Originally published as :
Sless David & Shrensky Ruth 1995. The boundary of communication. Australian Journal ofCommunication 22:2, 31–47. Available at https://communication.org.au/modules/publisher/index.php/item.28/the-boundary-of-communication.html?keywords=Boundary+Communication

An extended interpretation of intentional/Design/Stance can be found in two papers:

2) Burnette, C. H., 2002: "Intentionality and Design", in Durling, D. and Shackleton, J. Eds., Proceedings of the International Conference Common Ground, Design Research Society, Staffordshire University Press and  http://www.independent.academia.edu /charlesburnette

3) Burnette, C.H., 2009 r 2011: "Philosophical Modes in DesignThinking", http://www.  independent.academia.edu /charlesburnette

The concept of a dynamically formed and interpreted Formative object is presented in:

4) Burnette, C.H. 2009 r 2012: "Form in Thought; How Experience is Comprehended" Based on a presentation in the Architecture and Philosophy Program, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, http://www.independent.academia.edu/charlesburnette

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------