Jerry,
You are presenting your comments in a spatial and visual metaphor without justifying why that is either appropriate or correct, and my reading of your use of language is it appears intended to delude whilst appearing to be well justified.
How does what you say make sense in the real practical world of creating coherent and well justified theory on the basis of testable evidence?
Some of it doesn't seem to make sense epistemologically in terms of the language. I may be mistaken and would be grateful if you would for example explain the detail and justify:
' The image of a crossing or intersection conceptually portrays a region that becomes whole through the interaction of multiple ontological perspectives, where each reacts to and integrates the significant formative influences of the other. '.
How exactly does that region become whole? Why should it? What are the causal processes by which it does this? Are these ontological processes acting with self-agency by doing things independent of humans? Is this proof that machines can also have agency and hence design? How do ontological processes integrate the formative processes of each other?- doesn't that require people, or is there some process by which they do it by themselves without telling anyone?
And I'd also be grateful if you would explain how real people exist and do things in a purely theoretical, abstract and metaphorical concept of ' Beyond the incidence of ontological intersection, the geography of this theory place captures the spatial consequence of that meeting, which is the creation of a dynamic poetic region, a culturally situated and conditioned field'.
And also why we must assume that ontological perspectives must be complementary.
It is wonderfully poetic, but wearing a practical hat, I ask how does it work in reality and in practical research and how can PhD students use it in their data collection and analyses to produce justifiable theoretical findings?
Regards,
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jerry Diethelm
Sent: Wednesday, 23 September 2015 2:24 PM
To: PHD Design
Subject: [SPAM] Re: Mess of design theory - the challenge!
For me design theory today is an evolving image that is coming into focus.
I think of it as a:
Theory Place
When asked if he had discovered gold in the new world, the great Spanish explorer, Coronado, supposedly replied,
³Although we did not find the gold for which we sought, we found a wonderful place to look for it.²
Such I believe is also the case for late-modern design theory. I think we have found an especially promising place to look for it. There are, richly and increasingly, a number of useful maps and guides for how to get there, but I think they are all pointing - at least roughly - to the same conceptual region. Here is my personal GPS set of directions to this theory
place:
If you take the ontological road of axiology that I call valuing and meaning to where it intersects with the ontological road of epistemology, or more objective ways of knowing, you will have reached this late-modern theory place. I call it late-modern because it acknowledges both the possibility and the necessity of complementary ontological points of view. Without the former, one wouldn¹t know what was desired or why something needed to be done. Without the latter, one wouldn¹t know how or be able to do it.
The image of a crossing or intersection conceptually portrays a region that becomes whole through the interaction of multiple ontological perspectives, where each reacts to and integrates the significant formative influences of the other.
Beyond the incidence of ontological intersection, the geography of this theory place captures the spatial consequence of that meeting, which is the creation of a dynamic poetic region, a culturally situated and conditioned field where people and their agents are immersed and engaged in desired situational transformations, and where all manner of meaningful artifacts become forged and expressively brought into being by and for their owners.
Photographically,
Jerry
____________________________________________________________________________
On 9/22/15, 2:54 PM, "Charles Burnette" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On Sep 21, 2015, at 9:09 PM, David Sless
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 6. Does the theory provide plausible evidence that it can do useful
>> work in the world?
>
Yet it would be slighting the task of theory building to belief that on an intellectual or even cultural level what it elaborates adds nothing to understanding or knowledge - even if that is exclusively theoretical. We need theoretical thinkers even if they can¹t draw, use the best rendering software, solve real world problems, produce exemplary outcomes, or convince anyone of anything. The life of the mind is an environment in itself and should be supported, its propositions tested, and its potential uses critiqued. People with different understandings are essential to any understanding.
--
Jerry Diethelm
Architect - Landscape Architect
Planning & Urban Design Consultant
Prof. Emeritus of Landscape Architecture
and Community Service € University of Oregon
2652 Agate St., Eugene, OR 97403
€ e-mail: [log in to unmask]
€ web: http://pages.uoregon.edu/diethelm/
€ https://oregon.academia.edu/JerryDiethelm
€ 541-686-0585 home/work 541-346-1441 UO
€ 541-206-2947 work/cell
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|