Hello everyone,
It is interesting how we enter the Harry Potter stage of scholarly thinking. Every twenty years we have new concepts and new categories for something old and unfinished. The difference is that new people are making money, defending dissertations, getting promotions, and so on.
Now we got in the stage of spirituality as a major integrator. It appears that any emerging fad becomes an integrator: sustainability, resiliency, climate change, etc. Everything revolves around the fad. Just introduce the new word and you become an innovator.
Sometimes I think that carrying too much old staff is a huge handicap. But then when I see this Harry Potter science, my next thought is "Is the humankind getting crazy?" Just read here (thank you Cameron) http://theconversation.com/ken-wilber-a-climate-denier-say-it-aint-so-45486
I have nothing against religion, but we need to understand that its knowledge production component is embedded in an institution that is completely different from science. The problem is that many people do not understand what is science and every time they measure something, they claim they use The Scientific Method. So much about the intellectual resources of humanity. We need to go to another planet:) I am grumpy today.
By the way, look at all these integral frameworks and see how many logical and terminological inconsistencies you can find. It is a bit disheartening when professors in Philosophy (or Theology?) are signing that staff.
Best wishes,
Lubomir
-----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 cameron tonkinwise
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 8:08 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Integral Theory & Design?
Ken Wilber, perhaps oddly given his belief system, came out as a climate change denialist recently:
http://theconversation.com/ken-wilber-a-climate-denier-say-it-aint-so-45486
Cameron
___________
> On Aug 3, 2015, at 4:46 AM, Mike Anonymous <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> Has anyone found any merit in this text, its frameworks and its application to Critical Design studies?
>
> DeKay, M. (2011). Integral sustainable design: transformative perspectives. Routledge.
>
> It is applying the Integral Theory of Ken Wilber.
>
> His four quadrant model is:
>
> Objective + Individual = Behaviours Perspective
> Objective + Collective = Systems Perspective
> Subjective + Individual = Experiences Perspective
> Subjective + Collective = Cultures Perspective
>
> I thought it was a very comprehensive theory to help Design integrate with other discourses/fields as well as with professional practice.
> However, I am sceptical about its scholarly rigour.
>
> Thanks
> Mike
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|