Terry,
A very interesting post that will take time to fully digest. But here is a start.
A Theory of Design thinking holds that every human expression has meaning generated in a context under the interpretive influence of memory. . The circumstances that generate this expression and its interpretation are established by information coming from the body, brain, and environment. These signals establish a spatio-temporal structure interpreted in milliseconds through interaction with memory. The point here is that a structured and meaningful expression is generated before a conceptual analysis and linguistic definition can occur. Such an analysis depends on the prior existence of a meaningful expression. To become memorable and useful this expression must have been generated through the interpretation of incoming signals interacting with similar memories.
Closure (boundedness) must exist to some degree if objects of thought in memory are to be recognized, mapped, identified, and recalled but this
boundary can be arbitrary, loose, or tight as it depends on how the object is generated and adapted and edited later to serve a purpose. I’ll try to examine these thoughts in terms of your list of definitions and see where they lead. My intuitive bias is that both structure and meaning are harder to pin down and delimit in language unless the context and circumstances are overly defined and veritably unusable. I apply the same rubric to a definition as to define a purposeful thought. If it has information about a specific situation that fits an Intent regarding it, relevant objects of thought, a conceptual model to organize them, an expression that can appropriately communicate the intended meaning and affect, the capacity to execute a plan of action, evaluate its outcome in terms of its intent, and learn from, adapt, and apply experiential knowledge then that’s definition enough for any object of thought or thought.
Or, so I believe,
Chuck
> On Jan 20, 2016, at 8:24 AM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> Here is the first of three emails on definitions of design.
>
>
>
> Definitions have two aspects:
>
>
>
> * Structure
>
>
>
> * Meaning
>
>
>
> One of the puzzling things for me in the discussions to date. I have been
> describing why the structure of definitions of design shows that they fail
> as definitions. Responses have been primarily about meaning.
>
>
>
> The validity of a definition depends primarily on its structure.
>
>
>
> The meaning of a definition depends on its structure.
>
>
>
> For definitions, structure comes first, meaning can be allocated later.
>
>
>
> For testing the validity of a definition, if its structure does not fit the
> needs of what is required of a definition, then the definition fails,
> regardless of any meanings in it.
>
>
>
> Testing the validity of the structure of a statement that claims to be a
> definition is the first step rather than looking at its meaning.
>
>
>
> The structural requirements of any definition include:
>
>
>
> 1. The definition must describe a complete and continuous boundary in
> the realm of abstract concepts
>
> 2. This boundary must wholly contain some concepts and wholly exclude
> all other concepts
>
> 3. The definition must be wholly in the realm of theoretical concepts.
> For a definition, everything including physical and subjective phenomena are
> addressed as abstract concepts.
>
> 4. The definition describes the boundary in such a way as to include
> only those concepts that are to be included and to exclude those concepts
> that are to be excluded
>
> 5. The boundary defined in the definition must circumnavigate the
> boundaries of all concepts that are bounded in the definition
>
> 6. The boundary defined in definition must not cross the boundary of
> any concepts that are bounded in the definition.
>
> 7. The definition must be fixed in time i.e. the definition must
> remain consistent. In theory but extremely rarely in practice, a definition
> could define a boundary that changed in time, although the prescription of
> the definition of that boundary must remain fixed in time. I know of no
> definition of design that attempts a dynamic boundary definition.
>
> 8. The terminology used in the definition must be unambiguous.
>
> 9. Where there is the possibility alternative meanings could be
> inferred from the definition, then the structure of the definition must
> additionally include clauses that remove any ambiguities.
>
> 10. The boundary described in a definition must both include complete
> concepts and exclude complete concepts and the sum of the included concepts
> and excluded concepts must be the universe of concepts.
>
> 11. The structure and meanings of the definition must not fail any of the
> tests for fallacies.
>
> 12. Any boundary defined in the definition must be singular. I.e. there
> must be only one of each type of boundary.
>
> 13. The boundary described by the definition must be of a necessary and
> sufficient nature. That is the elements of the description of the boundary
> must all be necessary to defining whatever is defined, and the elements of
> the description of the boundary must be sufficient to include the concepts
> to be included and exclude those that are to be excluded.
>
> 14. There must not be contradiction between concepts included or excluded.
> For example, the definition of X is that it only exists as a sound and is
> coloured blue.
>
> 15. Any form a definition must define exactly the same boundaries are any
> other form of the same definition.
>
> 16. The boundary defined must not include everything as it then no longer
> functions as a definition
>
> 17. The definition must not be tautological
>
> The choice of concepts (i.e. the meaning of the definition) to be included
> or excluded (i.e. the meaning of the definition) can occur later. This
> choice of concepts is the meaning rather than the structure of the
> definition.
>
>
>
> The following are three examples of statements that fail structurally as
> definitions.
>
>
>
> Take, for example, the statement that a cat is an animal with four legs.
> Does this satisfy the structural requirements of being a definition as
> listed above? The boundary surrounds the concepts of 'animal' and 'four
> legged'. There are, however, other four legged animals than cats, so the
> definition can be seen to fail on one hand because it is insufficient, and
> on the other hand because to define 'cat' requires that the boundary of the
> definition of 'cat' must to cut across the boundary of the concept of 'four
> legged' in some unspecified way.
>
>
>
> Another example of a class of statements that structurally fail as
> definitions are ones of the form, 'Design includes..' These definitions fail
> structurally because the do not define a continuous boundary that explicitly
> includes certain concepts and excludes others. Without a fully defined
> boundary there is no definition.
>
>
>
> A third example of a class of statements that structurally fail as
> definitions are ones of the form, 'Design is what designers do.' This form
> of statement fails structurally as a definition because the boundary is
> incomplete and crosses conceptual boundaries. On one hand it fails because
> effectively design would include everything that designers do and designers
> do many things that would not be included in design activity (trim their
> toenails, watch television, sweep floors.etc.). On the other hand, it fails
> because others who would be not regarded as designers or doing design would
> be included because they do many of the same activities that designers, and
> many of these would not be regarded as being design activity. Third, it
> fails because it crosses a conceptual boundary. Four, it fails because of
> the implied tautology that 'Design is what designers do and what designers
> do is design'.
>
>
>
> Without even beginning to explore the meanings included in any definition of
> design, it is possible to test whether the statements claimed to be a
> definition of design can actually function structurally as a definition.
>
> It is on these grounds that I have been commenting on whether what is
> claimed as definitions of design can function as definitions. First is the
> test whether a statement claimed as a definition of design can validly
> define anything or not. Any meanings contained in the statements claimed as
> definitions are entirely secondary.
>
>
>
> In the next of these three emails on definitions, I'll focus on the
> statements that Simon and Merriam Webster claim as definitions of design.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Terence
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Dr Terence Love
>
> PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, PMACM, MISI
>
> Love Services Pty Ltd
>
> PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
>
> Western Australia 6030
>
> Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
>
> www.loveservices.com.au <http://www.loveservices.com.au>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
