Dear Klaus,
I can agree with your account as a useful account.
It misses, for me, the opportunity to announce to ourselves, that we know
considerably more about what we do
in terms of thinking, before during and after languaged accounts of our
thinking,
and, the same goes for our knowledge of the ways that others go about
thinking.
Using the artefacts of our languaged accounts as the basis for insights is
very useful,
but, it is not necessary that we then privilege such accounts, simply
because the evidence for them is so readily available.
We are more subtle and insightful and we can delve, through poetry and
poetic approaches, for example,
into the otherness of cognition.
And, I see much clear evidence of such extended/multiple approaches in
your own eloquent writings.
Cheers
keith
On 17/03/2016, 8:44 AM, "PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD
studies and related research in Design on behalf of Klaus Krippendorff"
<[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>ken,
>you said: " Klaus and some others dispute the value of theory altogether."
>i am not disputing theory altogether.
>in conjunction with the idea of design thinking, am merely pointing out
>that human thinking is a private affair, not accessible to direct
>observation. what one knows about someone's thinking is found in
>linguistic accounts about one's thought processes -- which are known to
>have little to do with what is actually going on in someone's brain.
>abduction, induction, and deduction are constructs of logic and manifest
>in descriptions of what someone says he or she went through coming to an
>conclusion, proposal, or justification.
>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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|