Dear David and Lubomir
Thank you, David, for reminding us not to indulge in 'pushers' company. But
I remain expecting more on your enlghtening views on how to deal with
metaphors (in one of your recent posts, you alerted us on mindful usage of
these!).
Also, Lubomir, in your last post you instruct us to thoutghfully -
preferably no longer - refer to other sciences' paradigms.
I wish to learn what would be, for us designers, a more appropriate
paradigm, and what would be the best substitute to the metaphoric thought
and terms to no longer wrongly attribute agency to our artifacts.
Insisting on never relinquishing our responsibility related to
outcomes/effects of our designs, Klaus tells us that common language is
misleading, and Latourian spiritism/animism are fundamentally
inappropriate, attributing agency to our designed artifacts.
Wouldn't unpacking those metaphors and structuring our own design paradigm
be our main and most urgent task?
Best regards,
François
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|