Dear Paul,
Like Don, I have a different take on this too.
I see the design-related differences, not in so much in terms of universal and personal truth but as a difference in kinds of qualitative relationships. An embodied designing involves conscious qualitative enaction. There are three basic kinds.
A primary qualitative relationship is an interest in the accepted, community owned knowledge about “things,” how they are and how they work, empirically derived and socially reliable knowledge that can help one do what they want or need to do. A primary quality relationship, however, is centered in an interest in the “thing” itself, which isn’t affected by the interest taken in it.
Secondary qualitative relationships, which are central to all designing, are built around the conscious interest and response relationships we have with situations and “things,” how we see and interpret them, how they appear, feel and mean, how we evaluate them in terms of our interests and how they’re improved or transformed for the better. Secondary qualitative relationships are centered in the meaning of the interest relationship itself. E.g. The light came in my window at an angle of 42º. I designed it to be a harbinger of spring.
Tertiary qualitative relationships, like secondary qualitative relationships, are holistic and conscious qualitative assessments of situations, in such terms as overall mood, tenor, condition or atmosphere, what Dewey called their overall qualitativeness. E.g. There were 14 people in the user group. They were a sullen, stubborn group who continued to drag their feet. It was also a dark and stormy night. The situation was dire: the resolution due tomorrow.
Our secondary quality enactive needs in designing requires the best and most appropriate primary quality knowledge that design research can provide - not to mention healthy working relationships.
Jerry
> On Jul 28, 2018, at 9:06 AM, P N Seshadri <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> The Truth:-
> TRUTH as IDEAL..
> Everyone - ordinary or otherwise- has sometime or other seriously
> contemplated about meaning of 'truth' either consciously or subconsciously.
> This I believe is irrespective of time and space as it relates to human
> society. In the Mahabharata - the great epic history of ancient India -
> there is meeting between a pious hunter by calling but makes living by
> selling meat procured from other hunters and a wandering ascetic. During
> the conversation between the two, the nature of "truth" comes up. The
> famous and enduring words of the hunter goes thus in free translation -
> That which is good for all beings in the ultimate sense is truth. Other
> deviating ways from this ultimate is not real truth. Fact is not
> necessarily truth and being non- factual does not make it necessarily
> untruth -. As an ordinary person I agree and am reminded of the famous
> saying:- "A Lie has speed but truth has endurance". Edgar J Mohn. It is
> subtle for sure!
> Truly,
> S Prativadi
>
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018, 11:26 AM Don Norman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Rather than reply to Mike's essay on truth, I offer an alternative
>> approach.
>>
>> As a scientist, I was not trained to look for truth: I was trained to look
>> for evidence. Truth is not something that can be established via science.
>>
>> Moreover, I was trained that although there could be evidence supporting a
>> hypothesis, this was simply support: It can not establish "truth." However,
>> contradictory evidence does mean that the hypothesis is either
>> false, ill-formed, or incomplete.
>>
>> --
>> In my attempts to understand the theoretical understructure of design, I do
>> not seek truth: I seek evidence, both supporting and contradictory. In
>> science, it is contradictory evidence that is the most powerful.
>>
>> Finally, almost all of our most cherished beliefs in design have very
>> little evidence behind them, either of support or of an attempt to
>> contradict. This holds whether we are talking about the "Golden Rule" or
>> the elements of "Human-Centered Design."
>>
>> Don
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 7:52 AM, Paul Mike Zender <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Don Norman
>> Prof. and Director, DesignLab, UC San Diego
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
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]
• 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|